83_FR_9
Page Range | 1511-2028 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
83 FR 1606 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
83 FR 1513 - Supporting Our Veterans During Their Transition From Uniformed Service to Civilian Life | |
83 FR 1635 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
83 FR 1511 - Supporting Broadband Tower Facilities in Rural America on Federal Properties Managed by the Department of the Interior | |
83 FR 1517 - Rules of Practice and Procedure; Rules of Practice and Procedure in Adjudicatory Proceedings; Civil Money Penalty Inflation Adjustments | |
83 FR 1657 - Notice of Inflation Adjustments for Civil Money Penalties | |
83 FR 1654 - Penalty Inflation Adjustments for Civil Monetary Penalties | |
83 FR 1556 - National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) and Independent Living Programs, Outdated, Superseded Regulations | |
83 FR 1556 - End Use Certificates (EUCs) | |
83 FR 1655 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Borrego Pipeline Presidential Permit Application, Webb County, Texas | |
83 FR 1612 - Proposed CERCLA Cost Recovery Settlement for Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, In or About Essex and Hudson Counties, New Jersey | |
83 FR 1609 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Revise Collection Numbers 3038-0052 and 3038-0074, Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, and Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities | |
83 FR 1548 - Performance of Certain Functions by the National Futures Association With Respect to the Receipt and Processing of Exchange Disciplinary and Access Denial Action Information | |
83 FR 1538 - Technical Amendments to Rules on Registration and Review of Exchange Disciplinary, Access Denial, or Other Adverse Actions | |
83 FR 1656 - Actions Taken at December 8, 2017, Meeting | |
83 FR 1608 - Foreign-Trade Zone 49-Newark/Elizabeth, New Jersey; Application for Expansion of Subzone 49C; E.R. Squibb & Sons, LLC; New Brunswick, New Jersey | |
83 FR 1661 - Notice of Open Public Hearing | |
83 FR 1565 - Wireless Emergency Alerts; Emergency Alert System | |
83 FR 1628 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Idaho | |
83 FR 1611 - Record of Decision for the F-35A Operational Beddown-Pacific, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska | |
83 FR 1566 - Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls | |
83 FR 1614 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
83 FR 1577 - Service Rules Governing Narrowband Operations in the 769-775/799-805 MHz Bands | |
83 FR 1613 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
83 FR 1614 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
83 FR 1612 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
83 FR 1628 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Recreation Visitor Use Survey | |
83 FR 1604 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to Texas | |
83 FR 1559 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to Texas | |
83 FR 1624 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Notice of Appeal or Motion | |
83 FR 1621 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 1622 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 1623 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 1623 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 1622 - Fogarty International Center; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 1623 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 1608 - Foreign-Trade Zone 186-Waterville, Maine; Application for Production Authority; Flemish Master Weavers; Subzone 186A; Invitation for Public Comment on Additional Information | |
83 FR 1607 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 40-Cleveland, Ohio; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Swagelok Company (Valve Component Parts); Solon, Willoughby Hills, Highland Heights, and Strongsville, Ohio | |
83 FR 1616 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
83 FR 1616 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
83 FR 1644 - Harbor Funds and Harbor Capital Advisors, Inc. | |
83 FR 1605 - Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board | |
83 FR 1559 - Changes in Requirements for Collective Trademarks and Service Marks, Collective Membership Marks, and Certification Marks; Correction | |
83 FR 1626 - Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System, Santa Fe County, New Mexico | |
83 FR 1605 - National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule | |
83 FR 1636 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on APR1400; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 1609 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions | |
83 FR 1609 - Procurement List; Deletions | |
83 FR 1599 - Safety Zone; Cape Fear River, NC | |
83 FR 1597 - Special Local Regulation; Chesapeake Bay, between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD | |
83 FR 1656 - Elkhart & Western Railroad Co.-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-Line of CSX Transportation, Inc. Between Monon and Monticello, in White County, Ind. | |
83 FR 1619 - Clarification of Orphan Designation of Drugs and Biologics for Pediatric Subpopulations of Common Diseases; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; Extension of Comment Period | |
83 FR 1552 - Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment-Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act | |
83 FR 1659 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple IRS Information Collection Requests | |
83 FR 1550 - Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments | |
83 FR 1611 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
83 FR 1647 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Fees for Certain Market Data Products on the Exchange's Equity Options Platform | |
83 FR 1641 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule | |
83 FR 1646 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Market Makers' Regulatory Fees | |
83 FR 1639 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.13, CBOE Hybrid System Automatic Execution Feature | |
83 FR 1636 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program | |
83 FR 1643 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 6.12, Order and Quote Execution and Priority | |
83 FR 1651 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Minimum Order Size for the Floor Broker Guarantee Provided in BOX Rule 7600(f) | |
83 FR 1555 - Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation | |
83 FR 1618 - Determining Whether To Submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application or 505(b)(2) Application; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; Reopening of the Comment Period | |
83 FR 1620 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN | |
83 FR 1519 - Rules of Practice and Procedure | |
83 FR 1655 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Romance and Reason: Islamic Transformations of the Classical Past” Exhibition | |
83 FR 1606 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
83 FR 1634 - Request for Information | |
83 FR 1525 - Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustments | |
83 FR 1625 - U.S. Coral Reef Task Force; Public Meeting and Public Comment | |
83 FR 1537 - Amendment of Class D Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Fort Eustis, VA | |
83 FR 1651 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
83 FR 1584 - Proposed Revocation and Amendment of Class E Airspace, Philipsburg, PA | |
83 FR 1630 - National Fall Safety Stand-Down To Prevent Falls in Construction; Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
83 FR 1633 - Cotton Dust Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
83 FR 1632 - Telecommunications; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
83 FR 1629 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Numbers Under the Paperwork Reduction Act | |
83 FR 1660 - Debt Management Advisory Committee Meeting | |
83 FR 1582 - Proposed Modification of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes in the Vicinity of Richmond, IN | |
83 FR 1515 - Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
83 FR 1553 - Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits | |
83 FR 1535 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
83 FR 1586 - Administrative Manual and Special Regulations Regarding Natural Gas Development Activities; Additional Clarifying Amendments | |
83 FR 1527 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
83 FR 1579 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
83 FR 1532 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes | |
83 FR 1529 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
83 FR 1602 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Montana; Revisions to East Helena Lead SIP | |
83 FR 2028 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 2022 - Regulatory Flexibility Agenda | |
83 FR 2018 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
83 FR 2014 - Semiannual Regulatory Flexibility Agenda | |
83 FR 1980 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions-Fall 2017 | |
83 FR 1974 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 1950 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 1968 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 1964 - Regulatory Flexibility Agenda | |
83 FR 1940 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
83 FR 1944 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 1932 - Fall 2017 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
83 FR 1928 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
83 FR 1926 - Semiannual Agenda and Fiscal Year 2017 Regulatory Plan | |
83 FR 1898 - Department Regulatory and Deregulatory Agenda; Semiannual Summary | |
83 FR 1894 - Semiannual Agenda of Regulations | |
83 FR 1890 - Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 1860 - Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 1886 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 1882 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 1872 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
83 FR 1854 - Fall 2017 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
83 FR 1832 - Fall 2017 Semiannual Agenda of Regulations | |
83 FR 1664 - Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions-Fall 2017 | |
83 FR 1850 - Improving Government Regulations; Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
83 FR 1824 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, Fall 2017 |
Forest Service
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Patent and Trademark Office
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Comptroller of the Currency
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to adjust the maximum Civil Monetary Penalties (CMPs) it can assess under statutes enforced by the agency. These changes are mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (FCPIAA), as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Improvements Act). The NRC is amending its regulations to adjust the maximum CMP for a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), or any regulation or order issued under the AEA from $285,057 to $290,875 per violation, per day. Additionally, the NRC is amending provisions concerning program fraud civil penalties by adjusting the maximum CMP under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act from $10,957 to $11,181 for each false claim or statement.
This final rule is effective on January 15, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0166 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Eric Michel, Office of the General Counsel, telephone: 301-415-0932, email:
Congress passed the FCPIAA in 1990 to allow for regular adjustment for inflation of CMPs, maintain the deterrent effect of such penalties and promote compliance with the law, and improve the collection of CMPs by the Federal government (Pub L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). Pursuant to this authority, and as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-34, 110 Stat. 1321-373), the NRC increased via rulemaking the CMP amounts for violations of the AEA (codified at § 2.205 of title 10 of the
On November 2, 2015, Congress amended the FCPIAA through the 2015 Improvements Act (Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599). The 2015 Improvements Act required that the head of each agency perform an initial “catch-up” adjustment via rulemaking, adjusting the CMPs enforced by that agency according to the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) between the month of October 2015 and the month of October of the calendar year when the CMP amount was last established by Congress. The NRC performed this catch-up rulemaking on July 1, 2016 (81 FR 43019).
The 2015 Improvements Act also requires that the head of each agency continue to adjust CMP amounts, rounded to the nearest dollar, on an annual basis. Specifically, each CMP is to be adjusted based on the percentage change between the CPI for the previous month of October, and the CPI for the month of October in the year preceding that. The NRC most recently adjusted its civil penalties for inflation according to this statutory formula on January 24, 2017 (82 FR 8133). This year's adjustment is based on the percentage change between the CPI for October 2017 and October 2016.
Section 234 of the AEA limits civil penalties for violations of the AEA to $100,000 per day, per violation (42 U.S.C. 2282). However, as discussed in Section I, “Background,” of this document, the NRC has increased this amount several times since 1996 per the FCPIAA, as amended. Using the formula
Monetary penalties under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act were established in 1986 at $5,000 per claim (Pub. L. 99-509, 100 Stat. 1938; 31 U.S.C. 3802). The NRC has also adjusted this amount (currently set at $10,957) multiple times pursuant to the FCPIAA, as amended, since 1996. Using the formula in the 2015 Improvements Act, the $10,957 amount last established in January 2017 will also increase by 2.041%, resulting in a new CMP amount of $11,181. Therefore, the NRC is amending § 13.3 to reflect a new maximum CMP amount of $11,181 per claim or statement. This represents an increase of $224.
As permitted by the 2015 Improvements Act, the NRC may apply these increased CMP amounts to any penalties assessed by the agency after the effective date of this rulemaking (January 15, 2018), regardless of whether the associated violation occurred before or after this date (Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 600; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). The NRC assesses civil penalty amounts for violations of the AEA based on the class of licensee and severity of the violation, in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (ADAMS Accession No. ML16197A561). A corresponding update to the NRC Enforcement Policy to reflect the updated CMP amount in § 2.205 will be published in the near future.
The 2015 Improvements Act expressly exempts this final rule from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, by directing agencies to adjust CMPs for inflation “notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code” (Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). As such, this final rule is being issued without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment, with an immediate effective date.
Paragraph (j) in § 2.205 is revised by replacing “$285,057” with “$290,875”.
Paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(ii) in § 13.3 are revised by replacing “$10,957” with “$11,181”.
This final rule adjusts for inflation the maximum CMPs the NRC may assess under the AEA and under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986. The formula for determining the amount of the adjustment is mandated by Congress in the FCPIAA, as amended by the 2015 Improvements Act (codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). Congress passed this legislation on the basis of its findings that the power to impose monetary civil penalties is important to deterring violations of Federal law and furthering the policy goals of Federal laws and regulations. Congress has also found that inflation diminishes the impact of these penalties and their effect. The principal purposes of this legislation are to provide for adjustment of civil monetary penalties for inflation, maintain the deterrent effect of civil monetary penalties, and promote compliance with the law. Therefore, these are the anticipated impacts of this rulemaking. Direct monetary impacts fall only upon licensees or other persons subjected to NRC enforcement for violations of the AEA and regulations and orders issued under the AEA (§ 2.205), or those licensees or persons subjected to liability pursuant to the provisions of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801-3812) and the NRC's implementing regulations (10 CFR part 13).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to regulations for which a Federal agency is not required by law, including the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C 553(b), to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 604). As discussed in this notice under Section III., “Rulemaking Procedure,” the NRC has determined that this final rule is exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and notice and comment need not be provided. Accordingly, the NRC also determines that the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply to this final rule.
The NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis for this final rule. This final rule does not involve any provision that would impose a backfit, nor is it inconsistent with any issue finality provision, as those terms are defined in 10 CFR chapter I. As mandated by Congress, this final rule increases CMP amounts for violations of already-existing NRC regulations and requirements. This final rule does not modify any licensee systems, structures, components, designs, approvals, or procedures required for the construction or operation of any facility.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).
The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.
This final rule does not contain a collection of information as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct material, Classified information, Confidential business information; Freedom of information, Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Organization and function (Government agencies), Penalties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 5
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 29, 53, 62, 63, 81, 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 189, 191, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2239, 2241, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 206 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5846); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 114(f), 134, 135, 141 (42 U.S.C. 10134(f), 10154, 10155, 10161); Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552, 553, 554, 557, 558); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
Section 2.205(j) also issued under 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(j)
31 U.S.C. 3801 through 3812; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
Section 13.3 also issued under 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. Section 13.13 also issued under 31 U.S.C. 3730.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Is for payment for the provision of property or services which the person has not provided as claimed, shall be subject, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than $11,181 for each such claim.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Contains or is accompanied by an express certification or affirmation of the truthfulness and accuracy of the contents of the statement, shall be subject, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than $11,181 for each such statement.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is amending its rules of practice and procedure for national banks and its rules of practice and procedure in adjudicatory proceedings for Federal savings associations to remove the chart listing the maximum dollar amount of civil money penalties the OCC has authority to assess.
This rule is effective on January 12, 2018.
Kevin Korzeniewski, Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 649-5490, or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the 1990 Adjustment Act),
On January 27, 2017, the OCC published a final rule amending its rules of practice and procedure for national banks and its rules of practice and procedure in adjudicatory proceedings for Federal savings associations to adjust the maximum amount of each CMP within its jurisdiction to administer for inflation.
Because the OCC will annually publish the maximum amount of CMPs the agency has authority to assess through a notice in the
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that an agency publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that the agency determine the rule's impact on small entities and consider options to reduce any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating any rule likely to result in a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more, as adjusted for inflation, in any one year.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Administrative practice and procedure, Crime, Equal access to justice, Investigations, National banks, Penalties, Securities.
Administrative practice and procedure, Federal savings associations, Penalties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 19 and 109 of chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 504, 554-557; 12 U.S.C. 93(b), 93a, 164, 481, 504, 1817, 1818, 1820, 1831m, 1831o, 1832, 1884, 1972, 3102, 3108(a), 3110, 3909, and 4717; 15 U.S.C. 78(h) and (i), 78o-4(c), 78o-5, 78q-1, 78s, 78u, 78u-2, 78u-3, 78w, and 1639e; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 330 and 5321; and 42 U.S.C. 4012a.
(a)
(b)
5 U.S.C. 504, 554-557; 12 U.S.C. 1464, 1467, 1467a, 1468, 1817, 1818, 1820(k), 1829(e), 1832, 1884, 1972, 3349, 4717, 5412(b)(2)(B); 15 U.S.C. 78(l), 78o-5, 78u-2, 1639e; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 5321; and 42 U.S.C. 4012a.
(c)
(2)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Final rule.
The FDIC is adjusting the maximum amount of each civil money penalty (CMP) within its jurisdiction to account for inflation. This action is required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Adjustment Act).
This rule is effective January 15, 2018.
Seth P. Rosebrock, Supervisory Counsel, Legal Division (202) 898-6609, or Graham N. Rehrig, Senior Attorney, Legal Division (202) 898-3829.
The Final Rule changes the maximum limit for CMPs according to inflation as mandated by Congress in the 2015 Adjustment Act.
The FDIC assesses CMPs under section 8(i) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA), 12 U.S.C. 1818, and a variety of other statutes.
In 1990, Congress determined that the assessment of CMPs plays “an important role in deterring violations and furthering the policy goals embodied in such laws and regulations” and concluded that “the impact of many civil monetary penalties has been and is diminished due to the effect of inflation.”
In 2015, Congress revised the process by which federal agencies adjust applicable CMPs for inflation.
Although the 2015 Adjustment Act increases the maximum penalty that may be assessed under each applicable statute, the FDIC possesses discretion to impose CMP amounts below the maximum level in accordance with the severity of the misconduct at issue. For example, when making a determination as to the appropriate level of a penalty assessed under section 8(i)(2) of the FDIA, 12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2), the FDIC is guided by statutory factors set forth in section 8(i)(2)(G) of the FDIA, 12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)(G), and those factors identified in the
The 2015 Adjustment Act notes that the FDIC “shall adjust [CMPs] and shall make the adjustment
The Final Rule modifies the maximum limit for CMPs according to inflation as mandated by Congress in the 2015 Adjustment Act. The 2015 Adjustment Act directs federal agencies to follow guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on December 15, 2017 (OMB Guidance), when calculating new maximum penalty levels.
During the 12-month period ending October 2017, the CPI-U was reported to have increased by 2.041 percent. In keeping with the OMB Guidance, the FDIC adjusted each of its CMP maximum penalty levels by the inflation factor.
The following chart displays the adjusted CMP amounts for each CMP identified in 12 CFR part 308.
These CMP adjustments are expected to minimize any year-to-year distortions in the real value of the CMP maximums. Additionally, these adjustments will promote a more consistent deterrent effect in the structure of CMPs. As previously noted, the FDIC retains discretion to impose CMP amounts below the maximum level. The actual number and size of CMPs assessed in the future will depend on the propensity and severity of the violations committed by banks and institution-affiliated parties, as well as the particular statute that is at issue. Such future violations cannot be reliably forecast. It is expected that the FDIC will continue to exercise its discretion to impose CMPs that are appropriate to their severity.
The 2015 Adjustment Act will likely result in a minimal increase in administrative costs for the FDIC in order to establish new inflation-adjusted maximum CMPs each year. Because these calculations are relatively simple, the number of labor hours necessary to perform this task is likely to be insignificant relative to total enforcement labor hours for the Corporation.
The 2015 Adjustment Act mandates the frequency of the inflation adjustment and the measure of inflation to be used in making these adjustments. This statute also provides that the FDIC is not required to proceed through notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act in making annual CMP adjustments. Therefore, the FDIC has not considered alternatives to the CMP Adjustments.
The 2015 Adjustment Act requires the FDIC to adjust its maximum CMP amounts “notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code,”
Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act
This Final Rule does not impose any new or additional reporting, disclosures, or other requirements on insured depository institutions. Therefore, the Final Rule is not subject to the requirements of this statute.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The OMB has determined that the Final Rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
The FDIC determined that the Final Rule will not affect family wellbeing within the meaning of section 654 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999.
The Final Rule does not create any new, or revise any existing, collections of information under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the FDIC to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Claims, Crime, Equal access to justice, Ex parte communications, Hearing procedure, Lawyers, Penalties, State nonmember banks.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the FDIC amends 12 CFR part 308 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 504, 554-557; 12 U.S.C. 93(b), 164, 505, 1464, 1467(d), 1467a, 1468, 1815(e), 1817, 1818, 1819, 1820, 1828, 1829, 1829(b), 1831i, 1831m(g)(4), 1831
(b) * * *
(4)
(i) Any person who has engaged in a violation as set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall forfeit and pay a civil money penalty of not more than $9,819 for each day the violation continued.
(ii) Any person who has engaged in a violation, unsafe or unsound practice or breach of fiduciary duty, as set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall forfeit and pay a civil money penalty of not more than $49,096 for each day such violation, practice or breach continued.
(iii) Any person who has knowingly engaged in a violation, unsafe or unsound practice or breach of fiduciary duty, as set forth in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, shall forfeit and pay a civil money penalty not to exceed:
(A) In the case of a person other than a depository institution—$1,963,870 per day for each day the violation, practice or breach continued; or
(B) In the case of a depository institution—an amount not to exceed the lesser of $1,963,870 or one percent of the total assets of such institution for each day the violation, practice or breach continued.
(d)
(1)
(i)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(ii)
(iii)
(B)
(C)
(iv)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(ii)
(iii)
(B)
(C)
(iv)
(4)
(5)
(i) Pursuant to 7(j)(16) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(16)), a civil money penalty may be assessed for violations of change in control of insured depository institution provisions pursuant to section 8(i)(2) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)) in the amounts set forth in this paragraph (d)(5).
(ii) Pursuant to the International Banking Act of 1978 (IBA) (12 U.S.C. 3108(b)), civil money penalties may be assessed for failure to comply with the requirements of the IBA pursuant to section 8(i)(2) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)), in the amounts set forth in this paragraph (d)(5).
(iii) Pursuant to section 1120(b) of the Financial Institutions Recovery, Reform, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) (12 U.S.C. 3349(b)), where a financial institution seeks, obtains, or gives any
(iv) Pursuant to the Community Development Banking and Financial Institution Act (Community Development Banking Act) (12 U.S.C. 4717(b)) a civil money penalty may be assessed for violations of the Community Development Banking Act pursuant to section 8(i)(2) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)), in the amount set forth in this paragraph (d)(5).
(v) Civil money penalties may be assessed pursuant to section 8(i)(2) of the FDIA in the amounts set forth in this paragraph (d)(5) for violations of various consumer laws, including, but not limited to, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (12 U.S.C. 2804
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(ii)
(A) The failure to pay an assessment is due to a dispute between the insured depository institution and the Corporation over the amount of such assessment; and
(B) The insured depository institution deposits security satisfactory to the Corporation for payment upon final determination of the issue.
(iii)
(iv)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
By order of the Board of Directors.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is adjusting for inflation the maximum amount of each civil penalty within the Bureau's jurisdiction. These adjustments are required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Inflation Adjustment Act). The inflation adjustments mandated by the Inflation Adjustment Act serve to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties and to promote compliance with the law.
This final rule is effective January 15, 2018.
Monique Chenault, Paralegal Specialist, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552, at (202) 435-7700.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990,
Specifically, Federal agencies are directed to adjust annually each civil penalty provided by law within the jurisdiction of the agency by the “cost-of-living adjustment.”
For the 2018 annual adjustment, the multiplier reflecting the “cost-of-living
The new penalty amounts that apply to civil penalties assessed after January 15, 2018 are as follows:
The Bureau issues this final rule under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990,
Under the APA, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
Section 553(d) of the APA generally requires publication of a final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, Penalties.
For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau amends 12 CFR part 1083 as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2609(d); 12 U.S.C. 5113(d)(2); 12 U.S.C. 5565(c); 15 U.S.C. 1639e(k); 15 U.S.C. 1717a(a); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(a) The maximum amount of each civil penalty within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to impose is adjusted in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note), as follows:
(b) The adjustments in paragraph (a) of this section shall apply to civil penalties assessed after January 15, 2018, regardless of when the violation for which the penalty is assessed occurred.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A319-115 and A319-133 airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition on these products, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. This AD was prompted by a fire during a flight, in the vicinity of the gaseous oxygen system (GOS) for passengers. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective January 29, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by February 26, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2014-0045, dated February 25, 2014; corrected March 4, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A319-115 and A319-133 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Following an ECAM [electronic centralized aircraft monitor] warning “CARGO SMOKE” during flight, the flight crew elected to divert and the aeroplane made an uneventful landing. The post-flight inspection evidenced a heavy fire in the vicinity of the Gaseous Oxygen System (GOS) for passengers, located close to the cargo area. The origin of the fire has not been clearly identified. After more investigation, Airbus determined that the current optional passenger GOS design, specific to A319 aeroplanes, is not robust enough to prevent further events of this kind.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an uncontrolled fire, possibly resulting in loss of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed mod 153555 to improve
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0153 to require modification of the passenger GOS installation.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, a mistake was identified in Airbus SB A320-35-1062 concerning the pressure relief valve installation and the SB has been corrected and revised accordingly with mod 155860.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0153, which is superseded, but requires those actions to be done in accordance with the instructions of Airbus SB 35-1062 Revision 01.
This [EASA] AD has been republished to correct an error that referenced the wrong effective date for EASA AD 2013-0153.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S. Register in the future:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective January 29, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-115 and A319-133 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers, having received in production Airbus modification 33125 (installation of Gaseous Oxygen System (GOS) for passengers), except those on which Airbus modification 153555 and 155860 have been embodied in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.
This AD was prompted by a fire during a flight, in the vicinity of the GOS for passengers. We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncontrolled fire in the vicinity of the GOS for passengers, near the cargo area, which could result in loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the actions at the times specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2014-0045, dated February 25, 2014; corrected March 4, 2014.
The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2014-0045, dated February 25, 2014; corrected March 4, 2014, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the frame outboard chord and in the radius of the auxiliary chord at a certain area. This AD requires inspections to detect this cracking, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 16, 2018 .
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 26, 2012 (77 FR 69747, November 21, 2012).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5232; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions specified in the NPRM.
We agree with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as (c)(1) and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
Boeing asked that the language “and repair” be removed from paragraph (i) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that the language in paragraph (i) refers to a section in Part 6 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006, which is to determine if the modification should be classified as interim or permanent. Boeing noted that the additional language “and repair” is not part of that section, and suggested it be deleted.
We agree with the commenter's request for the reason provided. We have deleted “and repair” from paragraph (i) of this AD.
Swiftair S.A. stated that the language describing the requirements in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD is confusing. Swiftair asked that the effectivity and the requirements identified in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be clarified in some way due to extensive sub-paragraphs. Swiftair recommended that the “and” in the sentence be emphasized.
We acknowledge the commenter's concern. However, we cannot emphasize or highlight specific text in an AD. The affected airplanes in paragraph (h) of the AD are those that meet all of the criteria specified in the sub-paragraphs. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Swiftair S.A. also stated that the language describing the requirements in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD is confusing. Swiftair added that the pre-regulatory text in the NPRM refers to actions from AD 2012-23-04, Amendment 39-17260 (77 FR 69747, November 21, 2012) (“AD 2012-23-04”) and the combination of that rulemaking and the actions in the proposed AD is confusing. Swiftair also stated that paragraph (r) of AD 2012-23-04 should be explained in the current requirements and not in the pre-regulatory text.
We agree that some clarification is necessary. Concerning the request to include the current requirements of AD 2012-23-04 in this AD, we would have had to issue different rulemaking. Instead of a stand-alone AD, the alternative would have been to supersede AD 2012-23-04, which would have resulted in a single but considerably more complex AD. All operators identified in AD 2012-23-04 would then have to show compliance with the new supersedure AD. Our experience with similar complex ADs, and with operator feedback, is that it is preferable to leave the existing AD as is and issue a related but stand-alone AD such as this one.
To clarify the criteria in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, we have added Note 1 to paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to reference the optional terminating action specified in paragraph (r) of AD 2012-23-04.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006. The service information describes procedures for inspections for cracks of the body station (BS) 727 frame outboard chord and in the radius of the auxiliary chord, and repair or replacement if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 160 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that are required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective February 16, 2018.
None.
(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the frame outboard chord and in the radius of the auxiliary chord at body station (BS) 727 and stringer (S) 18A. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the outboard and auxiliary chords, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the outboard chord and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 4,500 flight cycles or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do internal detailed and High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) inspections to detect cracks in the auxiliary chord radius, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006. If any crack is found during any inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15,000 flight cycles. Replacement of the outboard chord of the frame at BS 727 concurrently with the installation of the preventive modification of the outboard chord in accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006, terminates the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph.
The actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD are required for airplanes that meet the criteria of paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(4) of this AD.
(1) Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, line numbers 1 through 999 inclusive.
(2) Airplanes identified as Groups 1, 2, and 3 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006.
(3) Airplanes on which a preventive modification has been installed in accordance with the method specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i), (h)(3)(ii), or (h)(3)(iii) of this AD.
Note 1 to paragraph (h)(3) of this AD: The modification identified in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD is also specified in paragraph (r) of AD 2012-23-04, Amendment 39-17260 (77 FR 69747, November 21, 2012), as optional terminating action.
(i) Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006.
(ii) Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 1, dated May 25, 1995.
(iii) Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, dated June 30, 1994.
(4) Airplanes on which the outboard chord has not been replaced in accordance with the method specified in paragraph (h)(4)(i), (h)(4)(ii), or (h)(4)(iii) of this AD.
(i) Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006.
(ii) Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 1, dated May 25, 1995.
(iii) Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, dated June 30, 1994.
For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes having line numbers 1 through 999 inclusive, identified as Groups 1 through 3 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006, on which the preventive modification has been installed in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, dated June 30, 1994; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 1, dated May 25, 1995: Within 60,000 flight cycles after accomplishing the preventive modification, determine if the modification is classified as interim or permanent by using the edge margin measurement classification specified in part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006. In lieu of measuring on the airplane, a review of engineering documentation may be used to classify the modification if the engineering documentation was completed at the time of the modification and has the edge margins recorded.
(1) If the modification is classified as permanent, no further action is required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
(2) If the modification is classified as interim: Within 60,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the interim modification of the outboard chord of the frame at BS 727 at S-18A, but no earlier than 50,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the modification, do a one-time follow-on open-hole eddy current inspection to detect cracks in the modified chord, in accordance with part 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006. If any crack is found, before further flight, repair in accordance with part 3 or part 4, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006; except, if the repairs cannot be installed using the identified procedures, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
For airplanes having line numbers 1 through 3132 inclusive, on which an interim modification of the BS 727 outboard chord as defined in part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006, has been accomplished: Within 60,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the interim modification of the outboard chord of the frame at BS 727 at S-18A, but no earlier than 50,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the modification, do a one-time follow-on open-hole eddy current inspection to detect cracks in the modified chord, in accordance with part 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006. If any crack is found during the inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight, repair in accordance with part 3 or part 4, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006; except, where the repairs cannot be installed using the procedures identified in this service bulletin, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
Access and restoration procedures specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006, are not required by this AD. Operators may do those actions following their approved maintenance procedures.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5232; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on December 26, 2012 (77 FR 69747, November 21, 2012).
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 95-25-02, which applied to certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100
This AD becomes effective January 29, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by February 26, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1137; fax: 425-227-1149.
We issued AD 95-25-02, Amendment 39-9446 (60 FR 63615, December 12, 1995) (“AD 95-25-02”), which applied to certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. AD 95-25-02 was prompted by a report that the hinges of the small cargo door are made of a material that is sensitive to stress corrosion cracking. AD 95-25-02 required inspection(s) to detect cracks of the fuselage-mounted half of hinge assemblies of the small cargo door, and replacement of any cracked hinge assembly with a new hinge assembly. We issued AD 95-25-02 to prevent failure of the hinges of the small cargo door due to stress corrosion cracking, which could result in opening and/or separation of the door while the airplane is in flight, and resultant rapid decompression and/or structural damage to the airplane.
Since we issued AD 95-25-02, we have determined that the existing inspection program does not provide sufficient protection against fatigue-induced cracks.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2013-0028, dated February 8, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Over the years, stress corrosion- and fatigue-induced cracks were found on the hinges of the downward opening small cargo doors installed on Fokker F28 Mark 0100 aeroplanes.
To address the potential unsafe condition with respect to stress corrosion, CAA-NL issued AD (BLA) 93-036/2 [which corresponded to FAA AD 95-25-02] to require repetitive inspections and, if cracks are found, replacement of the hinges with hinges of a new design. These new hinges were installed before delivery on aeroplanes with s/n 11409 and higher.
To ensure the continued structural integrity with respect to fatigue, a repetitive inspection was included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
As part of the Widespread Fatigue Damage re-evaluation, it was concluded that the repetitive fatigue inspection in the ALS does not provide a sufficient level of protection against the fatigue-induced cracks.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of CAA-NL AD 93-036/2, which is superseded, and requires replacement of Part Number (P/N) A28410-405 and P/N A28410-407 hinges with modified P/N D28410-409 hinges.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD,
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition replacements that would be required based on the results of the required actions:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective January 29, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 95-25-02, Amendment 39-9446 (60 FR 63615, December 12, 1995) (“AD 95-25-02”).
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 11244 through 11267 inclusive, 11284, 11285, 11287, 11288, 11290, 11292, 11294, 11296, 11298, 11299, 11301, 11302, 11304, 11305, 11307, 11309, 11311, 11315, 11317, 11319, 11320, 11322, 11336, 11339, 11341 through 11344 inclusive, 11347, 11348, 11350, 11351, 11362 through 11364 inclusive, 11371, 11374, 11375, 11381 through 11384 inclusive, 11386, 11389, 11390, 11394, and 11401.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by a report that the hinges of the small cargo door are made of a material that is sensitive to stress corrosion cracking, and by the determination that the existing inspection program does not provide sufficient protection against fatigue-induced cracks. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the hinges of the small cargo door due to stress corrosion cracking, which could result in opening and/or separation of the door while the airplane is in flight, and resultant rapid decompression and/or structural damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the action(s) at the times specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2013-0028, dated February 8, 2013.
The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2013-0028, dated February 8, 2013, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1137; fax: 425-227-1149.
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-14-10, which applied to certain Airbus Model A330-342 airplanes. AD 2011-14-10 required repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracks of a certain fuselage frame at the fastener hole area just above a certain stringer, and repair, if necessary. This new AD was prompted by a new fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation, which showed that certain inspection thresholds and intervals need to be shorter. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition on these products, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective January 29, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by February 26, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.
We issued AD 2011-14-10, Amendment 39-16745 (76 FR 41657, July 15, 2011) (“AD 2011-14-10”), which applied to certain Airbus Model A330-342 airplanes. AD 2011-14-10 was prompted by a determination that airworthiness limitation item (ALI) task 533105-10-02 was not performed on certain airplanes. AD 2011-14-10 required repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracks of fuselage frame 39.1 at the fastener hole area just above stringer 28, and repair, if necessary. We issued AD 2011-14-10 to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the internal structure of the fuselage, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2011-14-10, we have determined, based on a new fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation that took into account airplane usage, that the compliance time threshold and intervals need to be shorter.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2012-0140, dated July 27, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-342 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Airworthiness Limitation Item (ALI) task 533105-01-02 is applicable to aeroplanes on which Airbus modification 40391 has not been embodied in production. The requirements associated to this task are applicable to aeroplanes on which Modification Proposal (MP) S10374 has not been embodied.
Following a query from an operator, investigations revealed that some aeroplane [manufacturer serial numbers] MSN, for which Airbus modification 40391 was indicated as fully embodied inside the Aircraft Inspection Report (AIR), did not
Prompted by these findings, EASA issued AD 2010-0173 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2011-14-10] to require repetitive special detailed inspections corresponding to ALI task 533105-01-02 and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective actions.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, a new fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation has been done, taking into account the aeroplane utilisation. Certain threshold and interval are more restrictive depending on airplane utilisation.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2010-0173, which is superseded, but requires those actions to be accomplished within amended thresholds and intervals.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S. Register in the future:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective January 29, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2011-14-10, Amendment 39-16745 (76 FR 41657, July 15, 2011) (“AD 2011-14-10”).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-342 airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers 0012 and 0017.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a determination that airworthiness limitation item (ALI) task 533105-10-02 was not performed on certain airplanes, and a new fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation, which showed that certain inspection thresholds and intervals need to be shorter. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the internal structure of the fuselage, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the action(s) at the times specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2012-0140, dated July 27, 2012.
The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2012-0140, dated July 27, 2012, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action removes Class E airspace designated as an extension at Fort Eustis, VA, as the Felker non-directional beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned, and the approaches cancelled at Felker Army Airfield, (AAF). This action also updates the airport's geographic coordinates under Class D airspace.
Effective 0901 UTC, March 29, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it removes Class E airspace designated as an extension, and amends Class D airspace at Felker AAF, Fort Eustis, VA, to support IFR operations under standard instrument approach procedures at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
This action also makes an editorial change to the Class D airspace legal description removing the words “(formerly the Airport/Facility Directory)”. Except for this change, the rule is the same as published in the NPRM.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by removing Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area at Felker Army Airfield, Fort Eustis, VA, due to the decommissioning of the Felker NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted under Class D to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Additionally, this action removes the words “(formerly the Airport/Facility Directory)” from the Class D airspace legal description.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of Felker Army Airfield, excluding the portion that coincides with the Newport News, VA, Class D airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be published continuously in the Chart Supplement.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Final rule.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is adopting certain amendments to its rules that, respectively, govern registration of intermediaries and relate to the Commission's review of exchange disciplinary, access denial, or other adverse actions. Generally speaking, these amendments are technical in nature. The amendments to both areas of the rules integrate existing advisory guidance. The amendments to the rules on review of exchange disciplinary, access denial, or other adverse actions also incorporate swap execution facilities (“SEFs”) and update provisions currently applicable to designated contract markets (“DCMs”). These final rules also remove numerous outdated cross-references, and add citations to applicable parallel provisions contained in other Commission regulations pertaining to SEFs and DCMs. Additionally, the final rules address the publication of final disciplinary and access denial actions taken by the SEFs and DCMs on their exchange websites.
This final rule is effective March 13, 2018.
Rachel Berdansky, Deputy Director, 202-418-5429 or
On December 20, 1978, the Commission adopted part 9 rules relating to the Commission's review of exchange disciplinary, access denial, or other adverse actions.
In June 2012, the Commission adopted final regulations for DCMs (“DCM Final Rules”).
Additionally, in the DCM Final Rules, the Commission adopted regulations in Subpart N—Disciplinary Procedures of part 38 to amend the disciplinary procedures applicable to DCMs.
On June 4, 2013, the Commission adopted new rules in part 37 for SEFs (“SEF Final Rules”).
On January 23, 2017, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM” or “Proposal”) to amend certain part 3 and part 9 rules.
The Commission proposed to amend the definitions of four terms in regulation 9.2. First, the Commission proposed to amend the definition of “disciplinary action” by removing the reference to “member of an exchange” and inserting “person” in its place.
The Commission also proposed to amend regulation 9.11(a) to remove the requirement that an exchange provide written notice to the Commission of a final disciplinary action or access denial action and replace it with a requirement to provide notice to the National Futures Association (“NFA”). As explained in the NPRM, the Commission delegated authority to the NFA in 1999 to receive and process exchange disciplinary and access denial information (“Part 9 Delegation”).
The Commission proposed an amendment to regulation 9.11(b)(3)(ii) by adding the type of product (as applicable) involved in the adverse action as an additional element required to be included in the contents of the notice. The Commission stated in the NPRM that requiring exchanges to provide this information in the § 9.11 notice will provide the Commission, market participants, the public, and other exchanges with greater transparency concerning where market abuses originate and whether the abuses are concentrated among certain product types.
The Commission also proposed to amend regulation 9.11(c) by deleting instructions for filing notice with the Commission and replacing them with instructions for filing notice with the NFA given the proposed changes to regulation 9.11(a) discussed above. The NPRM provided that filing of the notice with the NFA is accomplished when an authorized exchange employee verifies the accuracy of the information entered into BASIC.
The Commission proposed to amend regulation 9.11(d), which sets forth the effect of delivery and filing by mail, by deleting instructions related to filing notices with the Commission by mail since proposed regulation 9.11(c) calls for notice filings to be made to the NFA via BASIC instead of with the Commission by mail.
Pursuant to Commission regulation 9.12(b), an exchange that determines that a disciplinary action will become effective prior to the expiration of 15 days after written notice to the person that is the subject of such action must provide notification in writing either personally or by telegram or other means of written telecommunication. The exchange also must immediately notify the Commission by telegram or other means of written telecommunication. The Commission proposed to modernize regulation 9.12(b) by replacing references to “telegram or other means of written telecommunication” with the term “email” and provide a Commission email address for Commission notification.
Commission regulation 9.13 provides that whenever an exchange suspends, expels or otherwise disciplines, or denies any person access to the exchange, it must make its findings public by disclosing at least the information contained in the Commission regulation 9.11(b) notice. An exchange also must make such findings public as soon as the disciplinary action or access denial action becomes effective by posting a notice in a conspicuous place on its premises. As noted in the NPRM, posting a notice of disciplinary action on the premises of an exchange does little to publicize the action.
The Commission also noted in the NPRM that it anticipates that upon the effective date of the final part 9 rules, it will include links on its SmartCheck website to each exchange's website for posting notice of disciplinary action or access denial action.
Pursuant to Commission regulation 3.31, an applicant or registrant as a futures commission merchant (“FCM”), retail foreign exchange dealer (“RFED”), swap dealer (“SD”), major swap participant (“MSP”), commodity trading advisor (“CTA”), commodity pool operator (“CPO”), introducing broker
In 1999, concurrent with the Part 9 Delegation and Part 9 Advisory, the Commission issued an advisory pertaining to part 3 of the Commission's regulations (“Part 3 Advisory”). The Part 3 Advisory relieves registrants and applicants for registrant status from filing the Form 3-R if the information to be reported is solely the result of an exchange disciplinary or access denial action.
The comment period for the Proposal ended on March 24, 2017. The Commission received one comment letter.
MGEX agreed that an exchange should publish notices of certain disciplinary actions on its website. However, MGEX requested that an exchange have flexibility regarding how it fulfills this obligation. In particular, MGEX requested that regulation 9.13 be amended to ensure that an exchange has flexibility over the format, style, and location of the notice on its website, as well as any ancillary website relating to the publication of such notices. MGEX stated that an exchange should be able to archive notices on its website after a reasonable period of time. MGEX noted that archived notices should be accessible, but an exchange should have discretion to maintain them separately on its website. In addition, MGEX indicated that there may be situations where removing a notice from its website would be appropriate and exchanges should be provided with this discretion. In support of its position, MGEX stated that the regulatory environment or exchange rules could change over time such that certain notices no longer provide educational or informative value. MGEX commented that having notices that are predicated on antiquated rules may actually confuse members, market participants, or the public. Finally, MGEX requested guidance that regulation 9.13 will be limited to disciplinary actions that were finalized after the effective date of any final rulemaking.
The Commission, in consideration of the MGEX comment, is adopting the part 9 rules as proposed subject to the minor modifications described below. The Commission agrees with MGEX's suggestion to amend regulations 9.11(c) and (d) to allow an exchange to use email as a permitted method of delivering notice of the disciplinary or access denial action to the person subject to the action. Accordingly, the Commission is modifying 9.11(c) to allow delivery of the notice to the person's last known email address. The Commission is also amending 9.11(d) to provide that delivery of the disciplinary notice will be complete upon transmission of the email.
The Commission also agrees with MGEX that an exchange should have flexibility over the format, style, and location of the notice on its website including any indexing or search functionality. The Commission believes that adopting the rule as proposed provides sufficient flexibility for exchanges in this regard, although the Commission notes that an exchange must ensure that access to all disciplinary notices remain readily accessible regardless of whether the exchange decides to archive notices after a reasonable period of time.
In response to MGEX's comment requesting that exchanges should be given discretion in certain situations to remove a disciplinary notice from its website, the Commission acknowledges MGEX's concern that the regulatory environment or exchange rules could change over time and having notices that are predicated on antiquated rules may confuse members, market participants, or the public. However, the Commission believes that all disciplinary and access denial notices must be maintained on the exchange's website without the possibility of removal. Access to information regarding all exchange disciplinary and access denial actions provides valuable guidance and information to exchange members, market participants, and the public regardless of whether the regulatory environment or an exchange rule has changed. For example, the notices allow customers to consider member firms' and traders' disciplinary histories when considering whether to engage in business with them. This includes conduct by firms and traders that violated an exchange rule at the time the rule was in effect. The final rule also enables customers to consider an exchange's propensity to sanction firms and traders for rule violations when considering whether to trade on the exchange. In the limited circumstances where an exchange believes that a disciplinary notice may confuse its members, market participants, or the public as a result of a regulatory environment or exchange rule change, an exchange could address this concern by posting an attachment to
The Commission agrees with MGEX that the rulemaking should not be applied retroactively to final exchange disciplinary actions. Therefore, exchanges only will be required to publish disciplinary actions that are finalized after the effective date of the final rules.
As discussed above, the Commission proposed to amend regulation 9.2(f) to expand the definition of “member of an exchange” to include any person who has trading privileges on an exchange. The Commission explained that this change is necessary to conform the part 9 definition of “member” to the meaning set forth in section 1a(34) of the CEA and in 1.3(q) of the Commission's regulations. The Commission is adopting the amendment to regulation 9.2(f) as proposed. The Commission notes that 9.2(f)(1) preserves the prior definition of “member of an exchange,” while the inclusion of “any person who has trading privileges on an exchange” under 9.2(f)(2) conforms the “member of an exchange” definition with the meaning set forth in section 1a(34)(B) of the CEA and regulation 1.3(q)(1)(ii).
The Commission is also adopting the amendment to regulation 3.31(a)(1) as proposed. Therefore, the final rule relieves applicants and registrants from the obligation to update their Form 7-R or 8-R if the information to be reported is solely the result of an exchange disciplinary or access denial action.
The Commission is making an additional technical change to regulation 3.31. As reflected in the amended text of the rule, the Commission is eliminating the references to Form 3-R from subsections (a)(1), (a)(3), (b), and (c)(1) of regulation 3.31 by deleting from these subsections the phrase “to create a Form 3-R record of change.”
In a separate document published elsewhere in this issue of the
Consistent with the Part 9 Delegation, the updated Notice and Order delegates to the NFA the authority to perform the following functions: (1) To process exchange disciplinary information filed by an exchange or the Commission in the BASIC system; (2) to provide the Commission with access to a Management Report summarizing all recent exchange disciplinary information and to provide the Commission with the capability to generate standardized reports on the BASIC system; (3) to assist the Commission in enforcing exchange compliance with regulation 9.11 filing requirements; and (4) to serve as the official custodian of a database containing records of all exchange disciplinary and access denial actions filed with the NFA for inclusion in the BASIC system.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires federal agencies, in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules on small entities.
The part 3 rules adopted herein will affect certain applicant or registrant FCMs, RFEDs, SDs, MSPs, CTAs, CPOs, IBs, FTs who are non-natural persons, and LTMs who will no longer have to file a Form 7-R or 8-R if the information to be reported is solely the result of an exchange disciplinary or access denial action. The Commission previously determined that FCMs, RFEDs, SDs, MSPs, CPOs, and LTMs are not small entities for purposes of the RFA.
The amendment to Commission regulation 3.31 is not substantive in nature. In 1999, the Commission published the Part 3 Advisory which relieved all applicants and registrants from filing a Form 3-R if the information to be reported is solely the result of an exchange disciplinary or
The Commission does not, therefore, expect small entities to incur any additional costs as a result of the final rules. Consequently, the Commission finds that no significant economic impact on small entities will result from the final rules.
Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), certifies that the final rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies, including the Commission, in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information, as defined by the PRA.
As explained in the NPRM, the Commission did not seek to amend information collections 3038-0052 or 3038-0074 because the Commission believes that the rule modifications proposed would not impose any new information collection requirements that require approval from OMB under the PRA.
Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before promulgating a regulation under the CEA or issuing certain orders.
The Commission considers the costs and benefits associated with the final rules, including updating the pre-existing regulatory framework to incorporate SEFs, removing references to part 8 of the Commission's regulations, and revising the reporting and notice requirements for DCMs and SEFs. The Commission compares the costs and benefits of this rulemaking against a baseline of the status quo, the current requirements under part 3 and part 9. As explained in the NPRM, and as adopted, the rules are primarily technical in nature that clarify the obligations under the current rules and generally do not impose any new costs on DCMs, SEFs, or market participants.
In the Proposal, the Commission sought comment concerning all aspects of the costs and benefits. The Commission did not receive any comments that specifically addressed the Cost-Benefit Considerations section of the Proposal. However, MGEX commented that the proposed amendment to regulation 9.11(c) that would allow an exchange to only have to verify that information has been entered into NFA BASIC instead of mailing a notice to the Commission, and the amendment to 9.12(b) that would permit an exchange to satisfy its obligations to deliver notice of the disciplinary or access denial action by email reduces the burden to exchanges, albeit in nominal ways. As discussed above, the Commission is amending regulations 9.11(c) and (d) to allow exchanges to satisfy their delivery obligations of the disciplinary or access denial action to the person subject to the action by email.
Finally, in light of NFA's role and experience in performing registration functions on behalf of the Commission and as the custodian of related records (including exchange disciplinary filings), the Commission believes that it is appropriate to remove the requirement that an exchange provide written notice to the Commission of a final disciplinary action or access denial action and replace it with a requirement to provide notice to the NFA. NFA performs registration processing functions with respect to applicants and registrants and an individual's or firm's disciplinary history is a factor that must be considered in any fitness determination. Delegating to the NFA the responsibility for processing such filings and generating reports with the
Commission regulation 9.13 requires all DCMs and SEFs to maintain and make readily accessible final notices of exchange disciplinary and access denial actions on their websites.
The Commission continues to believe that requiring exchanges to post final disciplinary and access denial notices to their websites will slightly increase the costs for DCMs and SEFs. The Commission notes that the additional costs incurred by DCMs and SEFs will be offset in part due to the amendment in Commission regulation 9.13 that removes the requirement of posting disciplinary and access denial notices on the premises of the respective DCM or SEF. In order to estimate the additional costs, the Commission queried the NFA's BASIC system to determine the total number of disciplinary and access denial actions filed by DCMs and SEFs in 2016.
The total number of exchange disciplinary and access denial actions per year for all DCMs and SEFs is estimated to be 311 (296 actions for DCMs plus 15 actions for SEFs equals 311 total actions per year). The Commission anticipates each DCM and SEF will spend an additional 15 minutes per disciplinary notice to post on the exchange's website above the current requirement of posting the notice on the exchange's premises. Accordingly, the aggregate new burden of Commission regulation 9.13 is estimated to be 77.75 hours per year for the 15 DCMs and 24 SEFs (15 minutes multiplied by 311 anticipated actions per year equals 77.75 burden hours).
The Commission expects that a compliance officer employed by the exchange will post the disciplinary or access denial action notices to the exchange website. According to recent Bureau of Labor Statistics National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, the mean hourly wage of an employee under occupation code 13-1041, “Compliance Officers,” that is employed by the “Securities and Commodity Exchanges” industry is $46.01. Because DCMs and SEFs can be large, specialized entities that may engage employees with wages above the mean, the Commission has conservatively chosen to use a mean hourly wage of $50 per hour.
The Commission continues to believe that greater access to information regarding exchange disciplinary and access denial actions provides valuable guidance and information to exchange members, market participants, and the public. Releasing disciplinary information to the public serves to deter and prevent future misconduct and to improve overall compliance standards in the futures and swaps industry. It also allows customers to consider member firms' and traders' disciplinary histories when considering whether to engage in business with them. In addition, firms may use such information to educate their traders and associated persons as to compliance matters, highlighting potential violations and related sanctions. Further, any firm or individual facing allegations of rule violations may access existing disciplinary decisions to gain greater insight on related facts and sanctions. The Commission believes that the added deterrence of publishing disciplinary notices on exchange websites and the enhanced investigative and educational benefits of making such information public will ultimately decrease the incidents of wrongdoing and market abuses which benefits both market participants and the general public.
As noted above, section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the effects of its actions in light of the following five factors:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Section 15(b) of the CEA requires the Commission to take into consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws and endeavor to take the least anticompetitive means of achieving the objectives of the CEA in issuing any order or adopting any Commission rule or regulation. The Commission does not anticipate that the amendments adopted herein would promote or result in anticompetitive consequences or behavior.
Administrative practice and procedure, Brokers, Commodity futures, Major swap participants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Swap dealers.
Administrative practice and procedure, Commodity exchanges, Commodity futures.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends 17 CFR chapter I as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552, 552b; 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6a, 6b, 6b-1, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6
(b)
(a)(1) Each applicant or registrant as a futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer, major swap participant, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, introducing broker, floor trader that is a non-natural person or leverage transaction merchant shall, in accordance with the instructions thereto, promptly correct any deficiency or inaccuracy in Form 7-R or Form 8-R that no longer renders accurate and current the information contained therein, with the exception of any change that requires withdrawal from registration under § 3.33 or any change resulting from an exchange disciplinary or access denial action. Each such correction shall be prepared and filed in accordance with the instructions thereto.
(3) * * *
(i) If the new principal is not a natural person, the registrant shall update such Form 7-R.
(b) Each applicant or registrant as a floor broker, floor trader or associated person, and each principal of a futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer, major swap participant, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, introducing broker, floor trader that is a non-natural person, or leverage transaction merchant must, in accordance with the instructions thereto, promptly correct any deficiency or inaccuracy in the Form 8-R or supplemental statement thereto.
(c)(1) After the filing of a Form 8-R or updating a Form 8-R by or on behalf of any person for the purpose of permitting that person to be an associated person of a futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, introducing broker, or a leverage transaction merchant, that futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, introducing broker or leverage transaction merchant must, within thirty days after the occurrence of either of the following, file a notice thereof with the National Futures Association indicating:
(i) The failure of that person to become associated with the futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, introducing broker, or leverage transaction merchant, and the reasons therefor; or
(ii) The termination of the association of the associated person with the futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator,
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6b-1, 6c, 7, 7a-2, 7b-3, 8, 9, 9a, 12, 12a, 12c, 13b, 16a, 18, 19, and 21.
(b)
(1) Any arbitration proceeding, regardless of whether the proceeding involved a controversy between members of an exchange;
(2) Except as provided in §§ 9.11(a), (b)(3)(i) through (v), and (c), and 9.12(a) and 9.13 (concerning the notice, effective date and publication of a disciplinary or access denial action), any summary action permitted under the provisions of part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(13) of this chapter or part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(6) of this chapter imposing a minor penalty for the violation of exchange rules relating to decorum or attire, or relating to the timely submission of accurate records required for clearing or verifying each day's transactions or other similar activities; and
(3) Any exchange action arising from a claim, grievance, or dispute involving cash market transactions which are not a part of, or directly connected with, any transaction for the purchase, sale, delivery or exercise of a commodity for future delivery, a commodity option, or a swap.
(4) The Commission will, upon its own motion or upon motion filed pursuant to § 9.21(b), promptly notify the appellant and the exchange that it will not accept the notice of appeal or petition for stay of matters specified in this paragraph. The determination to decline to accept a notice of appeal will be without prejudice to the appellant's right to seek alternate forms of relief that may be available in any other forum.
(c)
(b)
(c)
(f)
(1) Any person who is admitted to membership or has been granted membership privileges on an exchange; any employee, officer, partner, director or affiliate of such member or person with membership privileges including any associated person; and any other person under the supervision or control of such member or person with membership privileges; or
(2) Any person who has trading privileges on an exchange.
(k)
Except as otherwise provided in this part, the following provisions of the Commission's rules relating to reparations contained in part 12 of this chapter apply to this part: § 12.3 (Business address; hours); § 12.5 (Computation of time); § 12.6 (Extensions of time; adjournments; postponements); § 12.7 (Ex parte communications in reparation proceedings); and § 12.12 (Signature).
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(a) * * *
(1)
(b) * * *
(3) The General Counsel, or his or her designee, may submit to the Commission for its consideration any matter which has been delegated pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(4) Nothing in this section will be deemed to prohibit the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated to the General Counsel, or his or her designee, under this section.
(a)
(b)
(1) The written notice of a disciplinary action or access denial action provided to the person against whom the action was taken by a designated contract market must be a copy of a written decision which accords with:
(i) Part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(3) of this chapter in the case of settlement offers;
(ii) Section 38.708 of this chapter in the case of decisions; or
(iii) Part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(5)(iv) of this chapter in the case of appeal decisions (including copies of any materials incorporated by reference) or other written notice which must include items listed in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)—(vi) of this section.
(2) The written notice of a disciplinary action or access denial action provided to the person against whom the action was taken by a swap execution facility must be a copy of a written decision which accords with:
(i) Part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(9) of this chapter in the case of settlement offers;
(ii) Section 37.206(d) of this chapter in the case of decisions; or
(iii) Part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(11)(iv) of this chapter in the case of appeal decisions (including copies of any materials incorporated by reference) or other written notice which must include items listed in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(3) The notice of a disciplinary action or access denial action provided to the NFA must include only the items listed in the following paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v):
(i) The name of the person against whom the disciplinary action or access denial action was taken;
(ii) A statement of the reasons for the disciplinary action or access denial action, detailing the exchange product which was involved, as applicable, and whether the violation that resulted in the action also resulted in financial harm to any customers together with a listing of any rules which the person who was the subject of the disciplinary action or access denial action was charged with having violated or which otherwise serve as the basis of the exchange action;
(iii) A statement of the conclusions and findings made by the exchange with regard to each rule violation charged or, in the event of settlement, a statement specifying those rule violations which the exchange has reason to believe were committed;
(iv) The terms of the disciplinary action or access denial action;
(v) The date on which the action was taken and the date the exchange intends to make the disciplinary or access denial action effective; and
(vi) Except as otherwise provided in § 9.1(b), a statement informing the party subject to the disciplinary action or access denial action of the availability of Commission review of the exchange action pursuant to section 8c of the Act and this part.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(1) As permitted by part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(14) of this chapter or part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(7) of this chapter (emergency disciplinary actions), the exchange reasonably believes, and so states in its written decision, that immediate action is necessary to protect the best interests of the marketplace; or
(2) As permitted by part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(10)(vi) of this chapter or part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(4) of this chapter (hearings), the exchange determines, and so states in its written decision, that the actions of a person who is within the exchange's jurisdiction has impeded the progress of a disciplinary hearing; or
(3) As permitted by part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(13) of this chapter (summary fines for violations of rules regarding timely submission of records) or part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(6) of this chapter (summary fines for violations of rules regarding timely submission of records, decorum, or other similar activities), the exchange determines that a person has violated exchange rules relating to decorum or attire, or timely submission of accurate records required for clearing or verifying each day's transactions or other similar activities; or
(4) The person against whom the action is taken has consented to the penalty to be imposed and to the timing of its effectiveness.
(b)
Whenever an exchange suspends, expels or otherwise disciplines, or denies any person access to the exchange, it must make public its findings by disclosing at least the information contained in the notice required by § 9.11(b). An exchange must make such findings public as soon as the disciplinary action or access denial action becomes effective in accordance with the provisions of § 9.12 by posting a notice on its website to which its members and the public regularly have access. Such notice must be maintained and readily available on the exchange's website.
(a) * * *
(2) Within ten days after a notice of summary action has been delivered in accordance with § 9.12(b) to a person who is the subject of a summary action permitted by part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(14) of this chapter or part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(7) of this chapter (emergency disciplinary actions), that person may petition the Commission to stay the effectiveness of the summary action pending completion of the exchange proceeding.
(a)
(b)
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Giancarlo and Commissioners Quintenz and Behnam voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice and order; delegation of authority.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or
This notice and order takes effect on March 13, 2018.
Rachel Berdansky, Deputy Director, 202-418-5429 or
In a separate document published elsewhere in this issue of the
In 1999, the Commission delegated authority to the NFA to receive and to process exchange disciplinary and access denial information (“Part 9 Delegation”).
The NFA must process exchange § 9.11 notices in a manner consistent with § 9.11. For purposes of this Notice and Order, the term “process” generally refers to receipt of filings and review of filings for compliance with applicable requirements. Section 9.11(a) requires that whenever an exchange decision, pursuant to which a disciplinary or access denial action to be imposed has become final, the exchange must provide written notice of such action to the NFA within 30 days. In addition, § 9.11 notices filed with the NFA must satisfy all of the content requirements set forth in § 9.11(b). Toward that end, notices filed with the NFA will be deemed certified when an authorized exchange employee verifies the accuracy of the information entered into BASIC.
The NFA must provide the Commission with access to the BASIC system so that the Commission can diligently carry out its legislative mandate. This includes access to a Management Report that includes the following for each disciplinary or access denial action:
• Name of Contributor (
• Name of Respondent;
• Contributor Reference Number (
• Date of Decision or Order;
• Date of Notification of NFA;
• Total Number of Days for Data to be Released into BASIC (
• Name of Staff Person Entering Data (
The Commission currently has access to the BASIC system and the ability to generate 26 standardized reports that are customizable with respect to the timeframe selected (
The NFA shall maintain, and serve as the official custodian of, records for exchange § 9.11 filings. The NFA shall fulfill this obligation by continuing to maintain the BASIC system and further developing it as necessary to comply with the terms of this Notice and Order. The NFA shall also implement such additional procedures (or modify existing procedures) as are necessary to reasonably ensure the security and integrity of these records.
Pursuant to section 8a(10) of the Act, the Commission has issued numerous orders authorizing the NFA to perform various portions of the Commission's registration functions and responsibilities under the Act.
In light of NFA's experience in processing and maintaining exchange disciplinary and access denial actions on behalf of the Commission, the Commission has determined that it will continue to delegate these functions to the NFA. This Notice and Order is in accord with the Commission's previous delegations to the NFA to perform registration processing functions with respect to applicants and registrants, in that, an individual's or firm's disciplinary history clearly is a factor that must be considered in any fitness determination. Deeming the NFA as the custodian of all exchange § 9.11 filings, and delegating to the NFA the responsibility for processing such filings and generating reports with the information amassed, should ensure that the NFA has the necessary information to continue to make appropriate registration determinations. Further, the Commission believes that this delegation order will enhance efficiency by permitting the Commission to carry out its statutory responsibilities under the CEA, while also freeing up Commission resources to be directed to other parts of its regulatory mandate.
The Commission has determined, in accordance with section 8a(10) of the Act, to delegate to the NFA the authority to perform the following functions:
(1) To process exchange disciplinary information filed with it by an exchange or the Commission for inclusion in the BASIC system;
(2) To provide the Commission with access to a Management Report summarizing all recent exchange disciplinary information and to provide the Commission with the capability to generate standardized reports on the BASIC system;
(3) To assist the Commission in enforcing exchange compliance with regulation 9.11 filing requirements; and
(4) To serve as the official custodian of a database containing records of all exchange disciplinary and access denial actions filed with the NFA for inclusion in the BASIC system.
The NFA is authorized to perform all functions specified herein until such time as the Commission orders otherwise. Nothing in this Notice and Order shall affect the Commission's oversight authority of exchange disciplinary programs. The Commission is retaining all of its oversight authority, including its authority to review and to modify exchange disciplinary actions and to take enforcement or other remedial action against exchanges for noncompliance with § 9.11. The NFA may submit to the Commission for clarification any specific matters that have been delegated to it, and
Commission staff will be available to discuss with NFA staff issues relating to implementation of this Notice and Order.
On this matter, Chairman Giancarlo and Commissioners Quintenz and Behnam voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations governing the maximum civil monetary penalties assessable for violations of statutes, rules, and orders within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended most recently by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, requires the Commission to issue this final rule.
This final rule is effective January 12, 2018.
Todd Hettenbach, Attorney, Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8794
1. In this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is complying with its statutory obligation to amend the civil monetary penalties provided by law for matters within the agency's jurisdiction.
2. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Adjustment Act),
3. The 2015 Adjustment Act defines a civil monetary penalty as any penalty, fine, or other sanction that: (A)(i) Is for a specific monetary amount as provided by federal law; or (ii) has a maximum amount provided for by federal law; (B) is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to federal law; and (C) is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the federal courts.
4. Under the 2015 Adjustment Act, the first step for such adjustment of a civil monetary penalty for inflation requires determining the percentage by which the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers (CPI-U) for October of the preceding year exceeds the CPI-U for October of the year before that.
5. The second step requires multiplying the CPI-U percentage increase by the applicable existing maximum civil monetary penalty.
6. The third step requires rounding the base penalty increase amount to the nearest dollar and adding that amount to the base penalty to calculate the new adjusted maximum civil monetary penalty.
7. Under the 2015 Adjustment Act, an agency is directed to use the maximum civil monetary penalty applicable at the time of assessment of a civil penalty, regardless of the date on which the violation occurred.
8. The adjustments that the Commission is required to make pursuant to the 2015 Adjustment Act are reflected in the following table:
9. Congress directed that agencies issue final rules to adjust their maximum civil monetary penalties notwithstanding the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
10. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, requires agencies to certify that rules promulgated under their authority will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
11. This rule does not require the collection of information. The Commission is therefore not required to submit this rule for review to the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
12. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
13. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number (excluding the last three digits) in the docket number field.
14. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202)-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
15. For the same reasons the Commission has determined that public notice and comment are unnecessary, impractical, and contrary to the public interest, the Commission finds good cause to adopt an effective date that is less than 30 days after the date of publication in the
16. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This Final Rule is being submitted to the Senate, House, and Government Accountability Office.
Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 250 and 385, chapter I, title 18,
15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(e)
5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 791a-825v, 2601-2645; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C 3701, 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352, 16441, 16451-16463; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85 (1988); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (1990); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (2015).
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Commission may assess a civil penalty of up to $22,363 for each day that the violation continues.
The current inflation-adjusted civil monetary penalties provided by law within the jurisdiction of the Commission are:
(a) 15 U.S.C. 3414(b)(6)(A)(i), Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978: $1,238,271.
(b) 16 U.S.C. 823b(c), Federal Power Act: $22,363 per day.
(c) 16 U.S.C. 825n(a), Federal Power Act: $2,852.
(d) 16 U.S.C. 825o-1(b), Federal Power Act: $1,238,271 per day.
(e) 15 U.S.C. 717t-1, Natural Gas Act: $1,238,271 per day.
(f) 49 App. U.S.C. 6(10) (1988), Interstate Commerce Act: $1,296 per offense and $65 per day after the first day.
(g) 49 App. U.S.C. 16(8) (1988), Interstate Commerce Act: $12,964 per day.
(h) 49 App. U.S.C. 19a(k) (1988), Interstate Commerce Act: $1,296 per day.
(i) 49 App. U.S.C. 20(7)(a) (1988), Interstate Commerce Act: $1,296 per day.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notification of civil monetary penalty adjustment.
This document informs the public that the maximum penalty for violations of the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act (ABLA) is being adjusted in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended. Prior to the publication of this document, any person who violated the provisions of the ABLA was subject to a civil penalty of not more than $20,111, with each day constituting a separate offense. This document announces that this maximum penalty is being increased to $20,521.
The new maximum civil penalty for violations of the ABLA takes effect on January 12, 2018 and applies to penalties that are assessed after that date.
Rita D. Butler, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; (202) 453-1039, ext. 101.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act), Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, section 701, 129 Stat. 584, requires the regular adjustment and evaluation of civil monetary penalties to maintain their deterrent effect and helps to ensure that penalty amounts imposed by the Federal Government are properly accounted for and collected. A “civil monetary penalty” is defined in the Inflation Adjustment Act as any penalty, fine, or other such sanction that is: (1) For a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law, or has a
The Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended, requires agencies to adjust civil monetary penalties by the inflation adjustment described in section 5 of the Inflation Adjustment Act no later than January 15 of every year thereafter. The Act also provides that any increase in a civil monetary penalty shall apply only to civil monetary penalties, including those whose associated violation predated such an increase, which are assessed after the date the increase takes effect.
The Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended, provides that the inflation adjustment does not apply to civil monetary penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or the Tariff Act of 1930.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act) pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013, (superseding Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.
The FAA Act contains the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act (ABLA) of 1988, Public Law 100-690, 27 U.S.C. 213-219a, which was enacted on November 18, 1988. Section 204 of the ABLA, codified in 27 U.S.C. 215, requires that a health warning statement appear on the labels of all containers of alcoholic beverages manufactured, imported, or bottled for sale or distribution in the United States, as well as on containers of alcoholic beverages that are manufactured, imported, bottled, or labeled for sale, distribution, or shipment to members or units of the U.S. Armed Forces, including those located outside the United States.
The health warning statement requirement applies to containers of alcoholic beverages manufactured, imported, or bottled for sale or distribution in the United States on or after November 18, 1989. The statement reads as follows:
GOVERNMENT WARNING: (1) According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health problems.
Section 204 of the ABLA also specifies that the Secretary of the Treasury shall have the power to ensure the enforcement of the provisions of the ABLA and issue regulations to carry out them out. In addition, section 207 of the ABLA, codified in 27 U.S.C. 218, provides that any person who violates the provisions of the ABLA is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000, with each day constituting a separate offense.
Most of the civil monetary penalties administered by TTB are imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and thus are not subject to the inflation adjustment mandated by the Inflation Adjustment Act. The only civil monetary penalty enforced by TTB that is subject to the inflation adjustment is the penalty imposed by the ABLA at 27 U.S.C. 218.
The TTB regulations implementing the ABLA are found in 27 CFR part 16, and the regulations implementing the Inflation Adjustment Act with respect to the ABLA penalty are found in 27 CFR 16.33. This section indicates that the ABLA provides that any person who violates the provisions of this part shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000, but also states that, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended, this civil penalty is subject to periodic cost-of-living adjustment. Accordingly, any person who violates the provisions of 27 CFR part 16 shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than the amount listed at
To adjust the penalty, § 16.33(b) indicates that TTB will provide notice in the
In this document, TTB is publishing its yearly adjustment to the maximum ABLA penalty, as required by the amended Inflation Adjustment Act.
As mentioned earlier, the ABLA contains a maximum civil monetary penalty. For such penalties, Section 5 of the Inflation Adjustment Act indicates that the inflation adjustment shall be determined by increasing the maximum penalty by the cost-of-living adjustment. The cost-of-living adjustment means the percentage (if any) by which the Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment exceeds the CPI-U for the month of October 1 year before the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment.
The CPI-U in October 2016 was 241.729, and the CPI-U in October 2017 was 246.663. The rate of inflation between October 2016 and October 2017 is therefore 2.041 percent. When applied to the current ABLA penalty of $20,111, this rate of inflation yields a raw (unrounded) inflation adjustment of $410.46551. Rounded to the nearest dollar, the inflation adjustment is $410, meaning that the new maximum civil penalty for violations of the ABLA will be $20,521.
The new maximum civil penalty will apply to all penalties that are assessed after January 12, 2018. TTB will also update its web page at
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the regulation for valuation dates in February 2018. The interest assumptions are used for paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.
Effective February 1, 2018.
Daniel S. Liebman (
PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminated single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's website (
PBGC uses the interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.
The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for February 2018.
The February 2018 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 0.75 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for January 2018, these assumptions are unchanged.
PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during February 2018, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is required to amend its regulations annually to adjust for inflation the maximum civil penalty for failure to provide certain notices or other material information and for failure to provide certain multiemployer plan notices.
Stephanie Cibinic, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs (
This rule is needed to carry out the requirements of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and Office of Management and Budget guidance M-18-03. The rule adjusts, as required for 2018, the maximum civil penalties under 29 CFR part 4071 and 29 CFR part 4302 that PBGC may assess for failure to provide certain notices or other material information and certain multiemployer plan notices.
PBGC's legal authority for this action comes from the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and from sections 4002(b)(3), 4071, and 4302 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
This rule adjusts as required by law the maximum civil penalties that PBGC may assess under sections 4071 and 4302 of ERISA. The new maximum amounts are $2,140 for section 4071 penalties and $285 for section 4302 penalties.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) administers title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Title IV has two provisions that authorize PBGC to assess civil monetary penalties.
On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,
On December 15, 2017, the Office of Management and Budget issued memorandum M-18-03 on implementation of the 2018 annual inflation adjustment pursuant to the 2015 act.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and therefore not subject to their review. As this is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is not considered an E.O. 13771 regulatory action.
The Office of Management and Budget also has determined that notice and public comment on this final rule are unnecessary because the adjustment of civil penalties implemented in the rule is required by law. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Penalties.
Penalties.
In consideration of the foregoing, PBGC amends 29 CFR parts 4071 and 4302 as follows:
28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599-601; 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1371.
28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599-601; 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1452.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, DoD.
Final rule.
This final rule removes DoD's regulation concerning the signing of EUCs required by foreign governments for foreign defense items purchased by the United States. DoD has determined that this part does not place a burden on the public as it deals with matters internal to DoD. DoD signs end use certificates (following internal coordination and approval) at the behest of a foreign country, when DoD is buying products from that country. Therefore, this part is unnecessary and can be removed from the CFR.
This rule is effective on January 12, 2018.
Karen Kay at 703-693-0909.
It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD internal policies and procedures that are publically available on the Department's issuance website. Once signed, a copy of DoD's internal guidance contained in DoD Directive 2040.03 will be made available at
This rule is being removed from the CFR because it does not place a burden on the public as it deals with matters internal to DoD. As a direct result of there being no burden on the public, there was never was a cost to the public to execute this rule, therefore, removing it does not provide a cost savings to the public.
Government procurement.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Final regulations.
The Secretary removes outdated, superseded regulations for five programs no longer administered by the Department: The Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, the Research Fellowships program, the Special Projects and Demonstrations for Spinal Cord Injuries program, the State Independent Living Services program, and the Centers for Independent Living program. In 2014, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act transferred these programs to the Department of Health and Human Services, which has adopted regulations for them.
These regulations are effective January 12, 2018.
Kate Friday, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 5104 PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2500. Telephone: (202) 245-7605 or email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free at 1-800-877-8339.
On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. Section 3(a) of the Executive Order directed each Federal agency to establish a regulatory reform task force, the duty of which is to evaluate existing regulations and “make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification.” Accordingly, the Secretary removes 34 CFR parts 350, 356, 359, 364, 365, and 366 because they have been superseded.
In 2014, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128) made significant changes to many programs administered by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). WIOA transferred the National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), its functions, and its programs from OSERS to the Administration for Community Living (ACL) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In the process, WIOA renamed NIDRR the National Institute for Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR). (See, WIOA sections 433, 435, 491(n).) The programs transferred were the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers program, the Research Fellowships program, and the Special Projects and Demonstrations for Spinal Cord Injuries program.
WIOA also created within ACL the Independent Living Administration and transferred to it two programs from the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) within OSERS, namely the State Independent Living Services program and the Centers for Independent Living
To ensure that there would be no interruption in funding for, or services provided by, these five programs during their transfer, WIOA kept the regulations for those programs in effect until they were properly “modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked” (WIOA sections 491(i)(1), 491(n)(3)(A)). The regulations for the five transferred programs are:
The Department and HHS completed all transfers from OSERS to ACL on March 30, 2015.
On May 11, 2016, HHS published final regulations for NIDILRR's three programs, superseding 34 CFR parts 350, 356, and 359, and combines them into a single part, now codified at 45 CFR part 1330. Those three programs are now titled the Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program; the Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Fellowships program; and the Special Projects and Demonstrations for Spinal Cord Injuries program (81 FR 29156).
On October 27, 2016, HHS published final regulations for the two programs transferred from RSA, superseding 34 CFR parts 364, 365, and 366. HHS did not change the names of the State Independent Living Services program or the Centers for Independent Living program, but combined all Independent Living program regulations and codified them at 45 CFR part 1329. (81 FR 74682).
Under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, this regulatory action merely removes regulations that are unnecessary because administration of the regulations and the affected programs has been transferred to another agency. This regulatory action adopts no new regulations and does not establish or affect substantive policy. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Secretary has determined that proposed regulations are unnecessary, and, thus, waives notice and comment rulemaking.
The APA also requires that regulations be published at least 30 days before their effective date, unless the agency has good cause to implement its regulations sooner (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). Again, because the final regulations merely remove regulations that are unnecessary because administration of the regulations and the affected programs has been transferred to another agency, the Secretary is also waiving the 30-day delay in the effective date of these regulatory changes under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For FY 2018, any new incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because this final rule is not a significant regulatory action, the requirement to offset new regulations in Executive Order 13771 does not apply.
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor their regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things, and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying
We are issuing this regulatory action only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected the approach that maximizes net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that these regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
This regulatory action is necessary to comply with Executive Order 13777 and to remove superseded regulations from the
This regulatory action is a benefit to the public, grant recipients, and the Department as the action will remove any confusion that might be caused by maintaining superseded regulations in the CFR.
The Department has also analyzed the costs of this regulatory action and has determined that it will impose no additional costs ($0). As detailed earlier, this regulatory action removes superseded regulations for five programs that WIOA transferred from OSERS to HHS and adopts no new ones. In 2016, HHS adopted regulations for the Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program; the Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Fellowships program; the Special Projects and Demonstrations for Spinal Cord Injuries program; the State Independent Living Services program; and the Centers for Independent Living program. See, 81 FR 29156 (May 11, 2016); 81 FR 74682 (October 27, 2016).
The Secretary certifies that this regulatory action does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As detailed above, this regulatory action merely removes superseded regulations from the CFR and imposes no costs.
This regulatory action does not contain any information collection requirements. The previously OMB-approved information collections that were contained in parts 350, 356, 364, and 366 are no longer active information collections with the Department of Education. These information collections were transferred to HHS under WIOA in May 2015 and March 2016, removing 1820-0027 and 1820-0527 from ED inventory and transferring part 366 from 1820-0018. The information collections under OMB 1820-0027 (parts 350 and 356), OMB 1820-0527 (part 364), and OMB 1820-0018 (part 366 only) are not contained in this regulatory action.
Some of these programs are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Grant programs—education; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Research; Vocational rehabilitation.
Grant programs—education; Human research subjects; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Research; Scholarships and fellowships; Vocational rehabilitation.
Grant programs—education; Research; Vocational rehabilitation.
Grant programs—education; Grant programs—social programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Vocational rehabilitation.
Grant programs—education; Grant programs—social programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Vocational rehabilitation.
Grant programs—social programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Vocational rehabilitation.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and under the authority of section 414 of the Department of Education Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. 3474, the Secretary of Education amends chapter III of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office published in the
This rule is effective January 12, 2018.
Catherine Cain, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, by email at
The USPTO issues this final rule to correct an inadvertent error in § 2.193(e)(1) of its June 11, 2015 final rule revising the Trademark Rules of Practice (80 FR 33170) (published under RIN 0651-AC89).
The June 11, 2015 final rule amended the introductory text of § 2.193(e)(1) to correspond with new § 2.2(n). However, the amendatory instruction inadvertently instructed that § 2.193(e)(1)(i)-(iii) be deleted. This correction revises the amendatory instruction and thereby reinstates paragraphs (i)-(iii).
This rule is issued without prior notice and opportunity for comment as this correction is procedural/interpretative in nature, and is being implemented to avoid inconsistencies and confusion with the rule issued on June 11, 2015. Additionally, as this correction rule is nonsubstantive, it is effective immediately upon publication.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs): This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks.
For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority contained in 15 U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2, as amended, the Office amends part 2 of title 37 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, Section 10(c) of Pub. L. 112-29, unless otherwise noted.
(e) * * *
(1)
(i) A person with legal authority to bind the owner (
(ii) A person with firsthand knowledge of the facts and actual or implied authority to act on behalf of the owner; or
(iii) An attorney as defined in § 11.1 of this chapter who has an actual written or verbal power of attorney or an implied power of attorney from the owner.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule; delegation of authority.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has submitted updated regulations for receiving delegation of the EPA authority for implementation and enforcement of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources). These regulations apply to certain NESHAPs promulgated by the EPA, as amended between April 24, 2013 and August 3, 2016. The delegation of authority under this action does not apply to sources located in Indian Country. The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the delegation of certain NESHAPs to TCEQ.
This rule is effective on March 13, 2018 without further notice, unless the EPA receives relevant adverse comment by February 12, 2018. If the EPA receives such comment, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0061, at
Mr. Rick Barrett (6MM-AP), (214) 665-7227; email:
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the delegation of certain NESHAPs to TCEQ. With this delegation, TCEQ has the primary responsibility to implement and enforce the delegated standards. See sections V and VI, below, for a discussion of which standards are being delegated and which are not being delegated.
Section 112(l) of the CAA, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, authorizes the EPA to delegate authority to any State or local agency which submits adequate regulatory procedures for implementation and enforcement of emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. The hazardous air pollutant standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63.
Section 112(l)(5) of the CAA enables the EPA to approve State air toxics programs or rules to operate in place of the Federal air toxics program or rules. 40 CFR part 63, subpart E (subpart E) governs the EPA's approval of State rules or programs under section 112(l).
The EPA will approve an air toxics program if we find that:
(1) The State program is “no less stringent” than the corresponding Federal program or rule;
(2) The State has adequate authority and resources to implement the program;
(3) The schedule for implementation and compliance is sufficiently expeditious; and
(4) The program otherwise complies with Federal guidance.
In order to obtain approval of its program to implement and enforce Federal section 112 rules as promulgated without changes (straight delegation), only the criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d) must be met. 40 CFR 63.91(d)(3) provides that interim or final Title V program approval will satisfy the criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d) for part 70 sources (sources required to obtain operating permits pursuant to Title V of the Clean Air Act). The NESHAPs delegation was most recently approved on November 25, 2014 (79 FR 70102).
As part of its Title V submission, TCEQ stated that it intended to use the mechanism of incorporation by reference to adopt unchanged Federal section 112 standards into its regulations. This commitment applied to both existing and future standards as they applied to part 70 sources ((60 FR 30444 (June 7, 1995) and 61 FR 32699 (June 25, 1996)). On December 6, 2001, the EPA promulgated final full approval of the State's operating permits program effective November 30, 2001 (66 FR 63318). TCEQ was originally delegated the authority to implement certain NESHAPs effective May 17, 2005 (70 FR 13108). Under 40 CFR 63.91(d)(2), once a State has satisfied up-front approval criteria, it needs only to reference the previous demonstration and reaffirm that it still meets the criteria for any subsequent submittals. TCEQ has affirmed that it still meets the up-front approval criteria.
By letter dated January 12, 2017, TCEQ requested the EPA to update its existing NESHAP delegation. With certain exceptions noted in section VI below, TCEQ requests delegation of certain Part 63 NESHAPs for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources). TCEQ's request included newly incorporated NESHAPs promulgated by the EPA and amendments to existing standards currently delegated, as amended between April 24, 2013 and August 3, 2016. These NESHAP were adopted by TCEQ on December 7, 2016.
The EPA cannot delegate to a State any of the Category II Subpart A authorities set forth in 40 CFR 63.91(g)(2). These include the following provisions: § 63.6(g), Approval of Alternative Non-Opacity Standards; § 63.6(h)(9), Approval of Alternative Opacity Standards; § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Test Methods; § 63.8(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Monitoring; and § 63.10(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Recordkeeping and Reporting. In addition, some Part 63 standards have certain provisions that cannot be delegated to the States. Therefore, any Part 63 standard that the EPA is delegating to TCEQ that provides that certain authorities cannot be delegated are retained by the EPA and not delegated. Furthermore, no authorities are delegated that require rulemaking in the
All of the inquiries and requests concerning implementation and enforcement of the excluded standards in the State of Texas should be directed to the EPA Region 6 Office.
In addition, this delegation to TCEQ to implement and enforce certain NESHAPs does not extend to sources or activities located in Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Under this definition, the EPA treats as reservations, trust lands validly set aside for the use of a Tribe even if the trust lands have not been formally designated as a reservation. Consistent with previous federal program approvals or delegations, the EPA will continue to implement the NESHAPs in Indian country because TCEQ has not submitted information to demonstrate authority over sources and activities
In approving this delegation, TCEQ will seek concurrence from the EPA on any matter involving the interpretation of section 112 of the CAA or 40 CFR part 63 to the extent that application, implementation, administration, or enforcement of these sections have not been covered by the EPA determinations or guidance.
We retain the right, as provided by CAA section 112(l)(7), to enforce any applicable emission standard or requirement under section 112. The EPA also has the authority to make certain decisions under the General Provisions (subpart A) of part 63. We are granting TCEQ some of these authorities, and retaining others, as explained in sections V and VI above. In addition, the EPA may review and disapprove of State determinations and subsequently require corrections. (
Furthermore, we retain any authority in an individual emission standard that may not be delegated according to provisions of the standard. Also, listed in the footnotes of the part 63 delegation table at the end of this rule are the authorities that cannot be delegated to any State or local agency which we therefore retain.
TCEQ must provide any additional compliance related information to the EPA, Region 6, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance within 45 days of a request under 40 CFR 63.96(a). In receiving delegation for specific General Provisions authorities, TCEQ must submit to the EPA Region 6 on a semi-annual basis, copies of determinations issued under these authorities. For part 63 standards, these determinations include: Section 63.1, Applicability Determinations; Section 63.6(e), Operation and Maintenance Requirements—Responsibility for Determining Compliance; Section 63.6(f), Compliance with Non-Opacity Standards—Responsibility for Determining Compliance; Section 63.6(h), Compliance with Opacity and Visible Emissions Standards—Responsibility for Determining Compliance; Sections 63.7(c)(2)(i) and (d), Approval of Site-Specific Test Plans; Section 63.7(e)(2)(i), Approval of Minor Alternatives to Test Methods; Section 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), Approval of Intermediate Alternatives to Test Methods; Section 63.7(e)(iii), Approval of Shorter Sampling Times and Volumes When Necessitated by Process Variables or Other Factors; Sections 63.7(e)(2)(iv), (h)(2), and (h)(3), Waiver of Performance Testing; Sections 63.8(c)(1) and (e)(1), Approval of Site-Specific Performance Evaluation (Monitoring) Test Plans; Section 63.8(f), Approval of Minor Alternatives to Monitoring; Section 63.8(f), Approval of Intermediate Alternatives to Monitoring; Section 63.9 and 63.10, Approval of Adjustments to Time Periods for Submitting Reports; Section 63.10(f), Approval of Minor Alternatives to Recordkeeping and Reporting; Section 63.7(a)(4), Extension of Performance Test Deadline.
The EPA must oversee TCEQ's decisions to ensure the delegated authorities are being adequately implemented and enforced. We will integrate oversight of the delegated authorities into the existing mechanisms and resources for oversight currently in place. If, during oversight, we determine that TCEQ made decisions that decreased the stringency of the delegated standards, then TCEQ shall be required to take corrective actions and the source(s) affected by the decisions will be notified, as required by 40 CFR 63.91(g)(1)(ii). We will initiate withdrawal of the program or rule if the corrective actions taken are insufficient.
For the NESHAPs being delegated and included in the table below, all of the information required pursuant to the general provisions and the relevant subpart of the Federal NESHAP (40 CFR part 63) should be submitted by sources located outside of Indian country, directly to TCEQ at the following address: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Permitting, Remediation and Registration, Air Permits Division (MC 163), P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. TCEQ is the primary point of contact with respect to delegated NESHAPs. Sources do not need to send a copy to the EPA. The EPA Region 6 waives the requirement that notifications and reports for delegated standards be submitted to the EPA in addition to TCEQ in accordance with 40 CFR 63.9(a)(4)(ii) and 63.10(a)(4)(ii).
In the future, TCEQ will only need to send a letter of request to the EPA, Region 6, for NESHAP regulations that TCEQ has adopted by reference. The letter must reference the previous up-front approval demonstration and reaffirm that it still meets the up-front approval criteria. We will respond in writing to the request stating that the request for delegation is either granted or denied. A
The public was provided the opportunity to comment on the proposed approval of the program and mechanism for delegation of section 112 standards, as they apply to part 70 sources, on June 7, 1995, for the proposed interim approval of TCEQ's Title V operating permits program; and on October 11, 2001, for the proposed final approval of TCEQ's Title V operating permits program. In the EPA's final full approval of Texas' Operating Permits Program on December 6, 2001 (66 FR 63318), the EPA discussed the public comments on the proposed final delegation of the Title V operating permits program. In today's action, the public is given the opportunity to comment on the approval of TCEQ's request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce certain section 112 standards for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources) which have been adopted by reference into Texas' state regulations. However, the Agency views the approval of these requests as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. Therefore, the EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this issue of the
If the EPA receives relevant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The delegation is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state request to receive delegation of certain Federal standards, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing delegation submissions, the EPA's role is to approve submissions, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), the EPA has no authority to disapprove a delegation submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA to use VCS in place of a delegation submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 13, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 63 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) * * *
(44) * * *
(i) The following table lists the specific part 63 standards that have been delegated unchanged to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for all sources. The “X” symbol is used to indicate each subpart that has been delegated. The delegations are subject to all of the conditions and limitations set forth in Federal law and regulations. Some authorities cannot be delegated and are retained by the EPA. These include certain General Provisions authorities and specific parts of some standards. Any amendments made to
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a three-year period, the information collection associated with the Commission's Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) Report and Order, FCC 16-127 (
47 CFR 10.320(g) published at 81 FR 75710, November 1, 2016, is effective January 12, 2018.
Maureen McCarthy, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at (202) 418-0011 or
A summary of the
If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1126, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on March
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1126.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
This information will inform emergency managers whether their alerts are delivered, and if not, why not. We anticipate that the alert log maintenance requirements will serve to ensure that alert logs are available when needed, both to the Commission and to emergency management agencies. These logs have potential to increase their confidence that WEA will work as intended when needed. Alert logs are also necessary to establish a baseline for system integrity against which future iterations of WEA can be evaluated. Without records that can be used to describe the quality of system integrity, and the most common causes of message transmission failure, it will be difficult to evaluate how any changes to WEA could affect system integrity.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, Commission issues new rules that protect consumers from unwanted robocalls by permitting voice service providers to proactively block telephone calls when the subscriber of a phone number requests that calls purporting to originate from that number be blocked, and when calls purport to originate from three categories of unassigned phone numbers: Invalid numbers, valid numbers that are not allocated to a voice service provider, and valid numbers that are allocated but not assigned to a subscriber. While such calls may appear to be legitimate to those who receive them, they can result in fraud or identity theft. To combat these scams, the new rules expressly authorize voice service providers to block these robocalls without running afoul of the FCC's call completion rules. To minimize blocking of lawful calls, the Commission encourages voice service providers that elect to block calls to establish a simple way to identify and fix blocking errors. The rules also prohibit providers from blocking 911 emergency calls.
Effective February 12, 2018.
Karen A Schroeder, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), at (202) 418-0654, email:
This is a summary of the Commission's
The
The Commission sent a copy of the
1. In the
2. Caller ID spoofing is often the key to making robocall scams work. Generally, Caller ID services permit the recipient of an incoming call to know the telephone number of the calling party, and in some cases a name associated with the number, before the recipient answers the call. But Caller ID information can be altered or manipulated,
3. Congress passed the 2009 Truth in Caller ID Act to “address the growing problem of Caller ID spoofing done for fraudulent or harmful purposes.” Congress limited the spoofing prohibition to the knowing transmission of misleading or inaccurate Caller ID information “with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value,” except where such transmission is determined to be exempt by the Commission.
4. Despite these protections, consumers still receive an unacceptably high volume of illegal robocalls. To combat the robocall problem in a coordinated way, industry established the Robocall Strike Force (Strike Force) in 2016. The Strike Force includes representatives from providers of traditional landline, mobile, and Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) services, handset manufacturers, operating system developers, and VoIP gateway providers. The Strike Force has said that “robocalls are best addressed in a holistic manner through deployment of a wide variety of tools by a broad range of stakeholders” that includes industry blocking of calls. On October 26, 2016, it published the Robocall Strike Force Report (Strike Force Report). The Strike Force specifically asked the Commission to provide guidance on when providers may block a call that the provider believes is illegal.
5. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) addressed one of the Strike Force's requests in 2016 by clarifying that voice service providers may block calls using a spoofed Caller ID number if the number's subscriber requests that they do so. Following that initial guidance, the Strike Force Report sought additional clarification regarding the legality of certain provider-initiated call blocking. Specifically, it sought clarification that: (1) Providers may block calls where the Caller ID shows an unassigned number; and (2) providers may block calls that the provider has determined to be illegal robocalls, so long as the provider takes reasonable steps to confirm that the calls are illegal.
6. In the March 2017
7.
8. In the
9. First, the Commission codifies the Bureau's earlier clarification that providers may block calls when they receive a request from the subscriber to which the originating number is assigned,
10. The record shows broad support among consumer groups, providers, government, and callers for blocking DNO calls. Consumers Union
11. ZipDX and others claim that gains from blocking DNO numbers will be temporary, because those making illegal robocalls will simply choose other numbers to spoof when their calls are blocked. The Commission disagrees that this possibility negates the
12.
13.
14. Other commenters, however, suggest that providers expand their existing ways of sharing information from the test cases and other initiatives to support this effort. As Comcast comments, “[p]articipants in the Strike Force have set up an ad hoc shared list of numbers that should not be originated and can add more for review.” USTelecom comments that its “Industry Traceback Group has been facilitating a targeted, centralized, and coordinated DNO trial and stands ready to continue to evolve industry efforts on this front going forward.”
15. The Commission strongly encourages providers to continue to work cooperatively to share information about any inbound-only numbers for which the subscriber has requested that the number be blocked. At this time, the Commission declines to prescribe a sharing mechanism, especially in light of industry's existing efforts at coordination. The Commission emphasizes that safeguards must be put in place to prevent numbers used for outbound calls from being wrongly added to the DNO list, whether from hacking, honest mistakes, or some other cause, especially for calls made to emergency services. The Commission encourages industry to continue developing its methods for implementing DNO and encourages providers that choose to do such blocking to establish a mechanism for timely removal of erroneous blocks.
16.
17. The Commission next finds that providers may initiate blocking where the call purports to originate from a number that is unassigned. Use of an unassigned number provides a strong indication that the calling party is spoofing the Caller ID to potentially defraud and harm a voice service subscriber. Such calls are therefore highly likely to be illegal. The Commission identifies three categories of unassigned numbers that it determines can be reasonably subject to blocking: (1) Numbers that are invalid under the North American Numbering Plan (NANP); (2) numbers that have not been allocated by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) or the Pooling Administrator (PA) to any provider; and (3) numbers that the NANPA or PA has allocated to a provider, but are not currently used. Providers may block calls purporting to be from numbers that fall into any one of these three categories.
18. Providers may block calls purportedly originating from numbers that are not valid NANP numbers. Examples of such numbers include those that use an unassigned area code; that use an abbreviated dialing code, such as 911 or 411, in place of an area code; that do not contain the requisite number of digits; and that are a single digit repeated, such as 000-000-0000, with the exception of 888-888-8888, which is an assignable number. With a few important exceptions detailed below, the record generally supports the assumption that, because these numbers are not valid, a subscriber could not lawfully originate calls from such numbers and these calls should be blocked. Providers, however, must take care that they do not block calls that purportedly originate from valid numbers, especially emergency calls.
19. The record supports the proposal that no caller would spoof an invalid number for any lawful purpose; for example, unlike a business spoofing Caller ID on outgoing calls to show its main call-back number, invalid numbers cannot be called back. Thus, the Commission does not see a significant risk to network reliability in allowing providers to block this category of calls. ATIS suggests that benefits will be temporary because “widespread blocking of invalid and unallocated numbers could have an unintended negative consequence by driving bad actors to focus their efforts on spoofing
20. The Commission rejects suggestions that blocking calls purporting to originate from invalid numbers creates “significant possibilities of false positives.” Although ZipDX claims that “a significant number” of private branch exchanges (PBXs) “are not properly configured” to display an accurate Caller ID and that Caller ID information could theoretically be “unintentionally altered” during a call's transmission, the record belies such claims. Instead, the record demonstrates that the risk of erroneously blocking such calls is very low and should not be a barrier to allowing providers to block calls purporting to be from invalid numbers. Indeed, the Commission agrees with USTelecom that this small risk simply requires providers to exercise “caution when instituting blocking in the network.” And the Commission reiterates that caution to businesses with PBXs: The responsibility to properly configure PBX equipment lies with the owner, and those spoofing invalid numbers (whether intentionally or not) have the ability to ensure that their calls go through by properly reconfiguring that equipment.
21.
22. The Commission finds that providers may block calls purportedly originating from numbers that are valid but have not yet been allocated by the NANPA or the PA to any provider. Though these numbers are valid under the NANP, the Commission finds that calls purporting to use unallocated numbers are similar to calls purporting to use invalid numbers in that no subscriber can actually originate a call from any of these numbers, and the Commission sees no lawful reason to spoof such numbers because they cannot be called back. Calls purporting to originate from such numbers therefore are highly likely to be illegal.
23. Here, the provider must have knowledge that a certain block of numbers has not been allocated to any provider and therefore that the number being blocked could not have been assigned to a subscriber. The record generally supports allowing permissive blocking of calls purporting to be from unallocated numbers. For example, ATIS points out that “no subscriber can actually originate a call from these unallocated central office codes and it is unlikely that there is any legitimate, lawful reason to.”
24. Parties opposing this type of call blocking generally do so based on implementation difficulties and the risk of blocking legal calls. For example, NCTA warns that the proposal “could unintentionally result in harm to consumers and should not be adopted at this time,” and ZipDX cautions that “[t]he unintended consequences of these blocks (false positives) are potentially quite troublesome and far outweigh any good that would result from successful robocall blocks.” Several commenters also note that, if providers block unallocated numbers, then “illegal robocallers could simply shift to spoofing assigned numbers.”
25. Commenters do not agree on the potential volume of calls that might be blocked under this rule. While ZipDX says the “fraction of complaints” from unassigned numbers is “miniscule,” USTelecom states that “the scale of numbers at issue in the Commission's latter two proposals [blocking calls from unallocated and unassigned numbers] are potentially enormous—encompassing 3 billion telephone numbers.” Transaction Network Services (TNS) attempts to strike a middle ground, suggesting that “[w]hile there is a large number of unallocated telephone numbers (over 33 million) that have been flagged as making calls, the volume of call activity from these numbers relative to all negative robocalling is very small.” TNS concludes that blocking “this subset of numbers has significant, but limited value.” In contrast, a recent Commission enforcement action found that one robocaller made a staggering 21,582,771 spoofed robocalls in a three-month period; the caller ID for each of the robocalls examined by the FCC falsely identified a phone number that was not assigned to any carrier or subscriber at the time the calls were made. Although the number of complaints about calls from unassigned numbers may be small, the Commission agrees with USTelecom that the potential value of blocking such calls is enormous. Consumers will benefit from this type of blocking because the calls are highly likely to annoy or defraud.
26.
27.
28. Neustar lists categories of unallocated numbers that should not initiate calls, including “telephone numbers in: (1) Unallocated area codes in the NANP; (2) unallocated geographic
29. Several commenters propose enhancements to the information provided by the NANPA and the PA. Neustar suggests that the NANPA and the PA “provide on their websites: (1) `Blacklists' of unallocated numbers that should not be making calls; and (2) `Whitelists' of allocated area codes in the NANP, allocated geographic CO codes in the United States, and allocated thousands-blocks in the United States.” Comcast takes a similar approach, suggesting that the databases “(1) more clearly identify which numbers have not yet been allocated and (2) are updated immediately to reflect any new allocations as they occur.”
30. The Commission believes that providers, the NANPA, and the PA are in the best position to determine how to share information about unallocated numbers. The Commission encourages these parties to work together on whether and how to improve the availability of this information for blocking purposes. At the same time, the Commission cautions against blocking calls purporting to originate from allocated numbers and encourages providers to examine their practices carefully to verify that they are not inadvertently doing so. A provider that erroneously blocks calls purporting to originate from allocated numbers may be liable for violating the call completion rules.
31. The Commission finds that providers may block calls purportedly originating from numbers that are allocated to a provider by the NANPA or PA, but are unused, so long as the provider blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number or has obtained verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time of the blocking. For these purposes, an “unused” number is a number that is not assigned to a subscriber or otherwise set aside for outbound call use. As with invalid numbers and unallocated numbers, calls cannot originate from such a number, and the Commission foresees no lawful purpose for intentionally spoofing a number that is unused and thus cannot be called back.
32. The record shows mixed support for allowing providers to block these kinds of calls. For example, EPIC points out that “because they are not assigned anyone using them without the provider's knowledge is almost certainly engaging in unlawful activity.” Many commenters, however, express concerns about legal calls being blocked, similar to the concerns about unallocated number call blocking, because “the status of numbers is always changing.” The record also shows “potentially thorny implementation issues” for blocking calls from unused numbers, similar to but greater in scale than those identified for unallocated numbers. In addition, the argument concerning the likely reaction of robocallers to the blocking of unallocated numbers detailed above applies here as well.
33.
34. The record reveals that creating such a database would be difficult. Neustar comments that providers “often consider such information to be competitively sensitive.” In addition, the information changes very quickly, “as providers are constantly assigning new numbers to subscribers or are de-assigning numbers when a subscriber leaves and decides not to take advantage of number portability.” While the FTC encourages providers to share this information, providers oppose mandatory information sharing. CTIA cautions that creating a centralized database “is technically challenging and would divert resources away from innovative solutions.”
35. The Commission concludes, however, that a narrowly tailored rule could be implemented without a database. Noble Systems makes a distinction between allowing providers to block calls purported to originate from numbers allocated to that provider, which the provider knows to be unused, and requiring providers to share information to block all unused numbers. Regarding their own numbers, “each individual service provider certainly knows which telephone numbers it has been allocated but not yet assigned to subscribers.” As such, the rule permits providers to block on this basis. Should the industry develop more comprehensive information sources that would facilitate broader blocking of calls purported to originate from unused numbers, the rule would also permit that kind of blocking.
36.
37. The Commission will not require providers to share competitively sensitive information on an industry-wide basis, nor will it limit providers to blocking only unused numbers they have been allocated. The Commission therefore defines the scope of this rule to allow providers to block calls purporting to originate from an unused number, so long as the provider blocking the call either (1) is the allocatee of the number and has confirmed the number is unused, or (2) has verified the unused status of the number with the allocatee at the time of the blocking. This gives providers the flexibility to share information if they wish to, and the Commission encourages providers to do so.
38. In addition, this is a permissive rule. CTIA points out that such “[a] voluntary regime will allow carriers that develop the ability to identify these numbers to block calls originating from them without forcing carriers to develop capabilities they do not currently possess.”
39.
40.
41.
42. The Commission agrees with commenters that internationally originated calls may have lawful reasons to use a NANP number. VON, for example, suggests “a US-based user of a service may be traveling in Europe but uses their service to make Wi-Fi-based calls (and have their US caller ID shown).” And the Commission agrees with Microsoft that it must “avoid inadvertently authorizing international call blocking.” But the Commission disagrees with ZipDX's apparent suggestion that some possibility of international call blocking means the Commission must abandon its efforts. Because the Commission authorizes blocking only for purported NANP numbers, it sees no reason why the actual origination point of the call would bear on whether it is blocked. In other words, the Commission finds the likelihood of blocking a legitimate call is minimal—no matter its origin. And the Commission reiterates that the rules do not authorize the blocking of any international call purporting to use a valid NANP number assigned to that user.
43.
44. The record shows support for allowing providers to block these specific types of spoofed calls without requiring consent from the subscriber. Some commenters emphasize the limited scope of calls that do not require consent. ITTA agrees with the Commission's reasoning that “obtaining opt-in consent from subscribers would add unnecessary burdens and complexity, . . . may not be technically feasible for some providers” and “would also add unnecessary delays.” EPIC comments that “proactive blocking” would benefit consumers, “especially those that rely on landlines, [who] may not have or use caller ID.”
45. Consumers Union
46. While providers are not required to obtain subscriber consent before blocking these calls, the Commission emphasizes that the types of calls that can be blocked are very limited. The Commission agrees with the recommendation from the Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC) and encourages providers to inform their customers about the features and risks of their own call blocking programs.
47.
48. The record shows significant support for excluding these calls from the call completion calculations to “incentivize carriers to participate in voluntary blocking when appropriate and consistent with the rules.” CenturyLink comments that “[w]ithout this protection, carriers may be unwilling to use any of the tools that may be adopted in the proceeding and the consumer benefits the Commission hopes to achieve may not be realized.” Consumers Union
49. Notwithstanding this support for the concept of excluding blocked calls from call completion rate calculations, it might not currently be possible for all providers to identify blocked calls. Originating providers required to file call completion reports have no standard mechanism to identify calls that are blocked intentionally under these rules by downstream providers and distinguish them from calls that are not completed for other reasons. Further, NTCA suggests that excluding such calls from call completion would be premature “until the definitions and practical considerations noted above are addressed and standardized by industry and the Commission.”
50. Given the inability of all providers who must file call completion reports to identify blocked calls in every instance and the Commission's revisiting of the rural call completion requirements in a separate rulemaking proceeding, the Commission does not believe that
51.
52. USTelecom notes that “the sharing of CPNI by telecommunications providers is essential to ensuring accurate and thorough call traceback efforts in multiple providers' networks related to suspicious calling events.” The Commission notes that traceback efforts are aimed at identifying persons who make illegal robocalls, including calls that involve fraud in violation of the Truth in Caller ID Act. The FTC comments that “information sharing by providers at the subscriber's request appears to be consistent” with the CPNI rules. The Commission agrees. Section 222 of the Act and the implementing rules explicitly allow telecommunications carriers to use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI obtained from its customers, either directly or indirectly through its agents, “to protect the rights or property of the carrier, or to protect users of those services and other carriers from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to, such services.” Furthermore, the Commission agrees with the FTC that when a subscriber requests that the carrier block calls purporting to be from the subscriber's inbound-only number, “the subscriber is almost certainly seeking to have the number blocked by as many providers as possible.” Therefore, such a request should be understood as authorizing the carrier to share that request with other carriers as permitted by section 222(c)(1) of the Act. Thus, voice service providers are free to share DNO requests as necessary to block calls in the limited circumstances identified in the
53.
54. As a reminder, the call completion rules require voice service providers to complete calls and they should therefore not block legitimate calls. The Commission also reminds callers that the Commission's complaint process is available when calls that fall outside the scope of these rules are improperly blocked.
55.
56. To shed additional light on the issue of robocalling and inform the Commission's actions going forward, the Commission directs the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection, to prepare a report on the state of robocalling in the United States and to submit it to the Commission within one year from publication of the
57. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the
58. The
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64. In the
65.
66.
67. INCOMPAS requests a mechanism that will “spare smaller providers from using additional resources to prove the legitimacy of its call traffic to other providers.” In the
68.
69. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
70. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small-business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that,
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives, among others: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
89. The Commission considered feedback from the
90. The Commission does not see a need to establish a special timetable for small entities to reach compliance with the modification to the rules. No small business has asked for a delay in implementing the rules. Small businesses may avoid compliance costs entirely by declining to block robocalls, or may delay implementation of call blocking indefinitely to allow for more time to come into compliance with the rules. Similarly, there are no design standards or performance standards to consider in this rulemaking.
91. The Commission sent a copy of the
92. Pursuant to sections 201, 202, 222, 251(e), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 222, 251(e), 403, the
93. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center,
94. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center,
Telecommunications, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends part 64 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 202, 225, 251(e), 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 251(e), 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless otherwise noted.
(i) [Reserved]
(j) [Reserved]
(k) Voice service providers may block calls so that they do not reach a called party as follows:
(1) A provider may block a voice call when the subscriber to which the originating number is assigned has requested that calls purporting to originate from that number be blocked because the number is used for inbound calls only.
(2) A provider may block a voice call purporting to originate from any of the following:
(i) A North American Numbering Plan number that is not valid;
(ii) A valid North American Numbering Plan number that is not allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator or the Pooling Administrator; and
(iii) A valid North American Numbering Plan number that is allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator or Pooling Administrator, but is unused, so long as the provider blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number and confirms that the number is unused or has obtained verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time of the blocking.
(3) A provider may not block a voice call under paragraph (k)(1) or (2) of this section if the call is an emergency call placed to 911.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, a provider may rely on Caller ID information to determine the purported originating number without regard to whether the call in fact originated from that number.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Service Rules Governing Narrowband Operations in the 769-775/799-805 MHz Bands, FCC 14-172. This document is consistent with the Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the
Amendments to 47 CFR 90.531(b)(2) and (7), published at 79 FR 71321, December 2, 2014, are effective January 12, 2018.
John A. Evanoff, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at (202) 418-0848 or
A summary of the 700 MHz Report and Order was published in the
If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1198, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on April 20, 2015, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to 47 CFR 90.531(b)(2) and (b)(7).
Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1198.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
Commission staff will use the information to assign licenses for narrowband public safety channels. The information will also be used to determine whether prospective licensees operate in compliance with the Commission's rules. Without such information, the Commission could not accommodate State interoperability or regional planning requirements or provide for the efficient use of narrowband public safety frequencies. This information collection includes rules to govern the operation and licensing of 700 MHz band systems to ensure that licensees continue to fulfill their statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Such information will continue to be used to verify that applicants are legally and technically qualified to hold licenses, and to determine compliance with Commission rules.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes and Model A319 series airplanes; all Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and all Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the holes of the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at certain areas of the left- and right-hand wings are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require modifying the holes of the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at certain areas of the left- and right-hand wings. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 26, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0117, dated July 7, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Within the scope of work of service life extension for A320 aeroplanes and of widespread fatigue damage evaluations, it has been determined that a structural modification is required to allow the aeroplanes to continue operation up to the limit of validity (LoV).
This condition, if not corrected, may affect the structural integrity of the wing.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued SB A320-57-1208, providing instructions to oversize the holes of the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at Rib 2 to Rib 7 (inclusive).
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of the affected holes.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1208, dated November 21, 2016. The service information describes procedures for modifying the stringer attachments at rib 2 through rib 7 of the left- and right-hand wings. The modification includes oversizing the holes, doing an eddy current inspection of the affected holes for damage, and repair. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,136 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by February 26, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112 -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers, except airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model A318 series airplanes on which Airbus Modification (Mod) 39195 has been embodied in production or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-00-1219 has been embodied in service.
(2) Model A319 series airplanes on which Airbus Mod 28238, Mod 28162, and Mod 28342 have been embodied in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, wings.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the holes of the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at rib 2 through rib 7 of the left- and right-hand wings are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in the stringer attachment holes of the wings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wings.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before reaching the upper limit, but not before reaching the lower limit, as defined in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable: Modify the holes of the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at rib 2 through rib 7 inclusive, on the left- and right-hand wings by oversizing the holes, doing eddy current inspections of the holes for damage, and repairing any damage found, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1208, dated November 21, 2016, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Repair all damage before further flight.
Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1208, dated November 21, 2016, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0117, dated July 7, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify five VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways (V-12, V-214, V-340, V-467, and V-517) and one low altitude area navigation (RNAV) route (T-213) in the vicinity of Richmond, IN. The FAA is proposing this action due to the planned decommissioning of the Richmond, IN (RID), VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid (NAVAID) which provides navigation guidance for portions of the affected ATS routes. Overall, this action would enhance the safety and management of aircraft within the National Airspace System (NAS).
Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1(800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-1144 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-30 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would support the route structure in the Richmond, IN, area as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-1144 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-30) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-1144 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-30.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA was originally considering decommissioning activities for the Richmond, IN (RID), VORTAC in 2023 as one of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the VOR Minimum Operating Network (VOR MON) program as listed in the final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),” published in the
With the planned decommissioning of the Richmond, IN, VORTAC, the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of the affected airways. As such, proposed modifications to VOR Federal airways V-12, V-214, V-340, V-467, and V-517 would result in gaps in the route structures. To overcome the gaps in the route structures, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic could use adjacent VOR Federal airways (V-5, V-47, V-50, V-55, V-97, V-214 (retained portions), V-221, and V-275) to circumnavigate the affected area, file point to point through the affected area using fixes that will remain in place, or receive air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors through the area. Visual flight rules (VFR) pilots who elect to navigate via the airways through the affected area could also take advantage of the adjacent VOR Federal airways or ATC services previously listed.
Additionally, due to the planned decommissioning of the Richmond, IN, VORTAC, the end point in the T-213 route description (the Richmond VORTAC) would be redefined to retain the T-route as charted.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify VOR Federal airways V-12, V-214, V-340, V-467, and V-517, and low altitude RNAV route T-213. The planned decommissioning of the Richmond, IN, VORTAC has made these actions necessary.
The proposed VOR Federal airways and RNAV T-route changes are outlined below.
All radials in the route descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), and United States Area Navigation Routes (low altitude T-routes) are published in paragraph 6011, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways and RNAV T-route listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Gaviota, CA; San Marcus, CA; Palmdale, CA; 38 miles, 6 miles wide, Hector, CA; 12 miles, 38 miles, 85 MSL, 14 miles, 75 MSL, Needles, CA; 45 miles, 34 miles, 95 MSL, Drake, AZ; Winslow, AZ; 30 miles, 85 MSL, Zuni, NM; Albuquerque, NM; Otto, NM; Anton Chico, NM; Tucumcari, NM; Amarillo, TX; Mitbee, OK; Anthony, KS; Wichita, KS; Emporia, KS; INT Emporia 063° and Napoleon, MO, 243° radials; Napoleon; INT Napoleon 095° and Columbia, MO, 292° radials; Columbia; Foristell, MO; Troy, IL; Bible Grove, IL; to Shelbyville, IN. From Allegheny, PA; Johnstown, PA; Harrisburg, PA; INT Harrisburg 092° and Pottstown, PA, 278° radials; to Pottstown.
From Kokomo IN, Marion, IN; to Muncie, IN. From INT Appleton, OH, 236° and Zanesville, OH, 274° radials; Zanesville; Bellaire, OH; INT Bellaire 107° and Grantsville, MD, 285° radials; Grantsville; Martinsburg, WV; INT Martinsburg 094° and Baltimore, MD, 300° radials; Baltimore; INT Baltimore 093° and Dupont, DE, 223° radials; Dupont; Yardley, PA; to Teterboro, NJ.
From INT Peotone, IL, 053° and Knox, IN, 297° radials; Knox; to Fort Wayne, IN.
From Waterville, OH; to Detroit, MI.
From Snowbird, TN; INT Snowbird 329° and London, KY, 141° radials; London; INT London 004° and Falmouth, KY, 164° radials; Falmouth; to Cincinnati, OH.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to remove Class E surface airspace at Mid-State Airport, as the airport no longer qualifies for surface airspace. Also, this action proposes to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Philipsburg Area Hospital Heliport, as the Hospital has closed. Controlled airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at Mid-State Airport.
Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to: U. S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg. Ground Floor Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2017-0755; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-11, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone 404 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the internet at
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0755; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-11.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to remove Class E surface airspace at Mid-State Airport as the airport no longer qualifies for the airspace. Also, the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface surrounding Philipsburg Area Hospital Heliport would be removed as the hospital has closed. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations in the area.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6002 and 6005 respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Mid-State Airport extending clockwise from the 261° bearing to the 012° bearing from the airport and within a 7.4-mile radius of Mid-State Airport extending clockwise from the 012° bearing to the 098°
Delaware River Basin Commission.
Proposed rule; notice of public hearing.
The Commission proposes to amend its
See
Kate Schmidt, 609-477-7205,
The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC or “Commission”) is a regional interstate and federal agency formed by concurrent compact legislation of the four basin states and the federal government in 1961 to manage the water resources of the Delaware River Basin without regard to political boundaries. Its members are,
On September 13, 2017, the Commissioners by a Resolution for the Minutes directed the Executive Director to prepare and publish for public comment a revised set of draft regulations, to include: “(a) prohibitions relating to the production of natural gas utilizing horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing within the basin; (b) provisions for ensuring the safe and protective storage, treatment, disposal and/or discharge of wastewater within the basin associated with horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing for the production of natural gas where permitted; and (c) regulation of the inter-basin transfer of water and wastewater for purposes of natural gas development where permitted.”
In accordance with the Commissioners' September 13 directive, the Commission is proposing amendments to its regulations and comprehensive plan to better provide for the planning, conservation, utilization, development, management and control of the basin's water resources in connection with the hydraulic fracturing of shale and other hydrocarbon bearing formations to produce oil and gas. The Commission proposes to prohibit high volume hydraulic fracturing within the basin to effectuate the comprehensive plan for the immediate and long-term development and use of the water resources of the basin, and to conserve, preserve and protect the quality and quantity of the basin's water resources for uses in accordance with the comprehensive plan.
Through a series of policies and regulations establishing and amending its comprehensive plan, the Commission over the past half-century has established in-stream water quality standards throughout the basin, prohibited degradation of groundwater, and provided special protection to the non-tidal segment of the Delaware River to preserve its exceptionally high water quality and water supply values. As the agency through which the five signatory parties to the Compact collectively manage the basin's water resources on a
Portions of Pennsylvania and New York comprising about 40 percent of the basin's geographic area are underlain by the Marcellus and Utica shales, geologic strata known to contain natural gas. Although the presence of commercially viable natural gas from these formations within the basin is not known, in regions of Pennsylvania west of the basin divide, oil and natural gas are extracted from the Marcellus and Utica formations by means of directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing using large volumes of water in a process referred to commonly in the region as “high volume hydraulic fracturing” (HVHF).
During hydraulic fracturing, hydraulic fracturing fluid consisting primarily of water and recycled wastewater mixed with chemicals is injected through a well bore into the target rock formation under pressures great enough to fracture the rock. The fracturing fluid typically includes proppants (usually sand), which hold open the newly created fractures, allowing the gas to flow back through them and up the well to the surface. After a well is “stimulated” through hydraulic fracturing, much of the injected fracturing fluid, together with brines that were trapped within the target formation, is conveyed to the surface, where these fluids are collected and managed. The returned fluids, known as “flowback” and “produced water,” contain chemicals used in the fracturing mixture, as well as salts, metals, radionuclides, and hydrocarbons from the target rock formation. As discussed in greater detail below, in the Marcellus region in Pennsylvania, the median quantity of water required to stimulate a natural gas well exceeds 4 million gallons for each fracturing event.
The use of HVHF to extract oil and natural gas from tight shale formations presents risks, vulnerabilities and impacts to the quality and quantity of surface and ground water resources that have been documented extensively, including in comprehensive reports by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
Withdrawals from surface and ground water in the amounts required for HVHF may adversely affect aquatic ecosystems and river channel and riparian resources downstream, including wetlands, and may diminish the quantity of water stored in an aquifer or a stream's capacity to assimilate pollutants. Because HVHF operations may significantly increase the volume of water withdrawn in a localized area, they may ultimately upset the balance between the demand on water resources and the availability of those resources for uses protected by the Commission's comprehensive plan, particularly during periods of low precipitation or drought.
• Salts, including chloride, bromide, sulfate, sodium, magnesium, and calcium;
• Metals, including barium, manganese, iron, and strontium;
• Naturally-occurring organic compounds, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), and oil and grease;
• Radioactive materials, including radium; and
• Hydraulic fracturing chemicals and their chemical transformation products.
The disposal of produced water poses a significant risk to the water resources of the basin if the wastewater is not properly managed. The concentration of TDS in produced water can be high enough that if discharged untreated to surface water, the potential exists to adversely affect designated uses of surface water, including drinking water, aquatic life support, livestock watering, irrigation, and industrial use. Because produced water contains high TDS and dissolved inorganic constituents that most publicly owned treatment works and other municipal wastewater treatment facilities are not designed to remove, these constituents can be discharged untreated from such facilities; can disrupt treatment processes, for example by inhibiting biological treatment; can accumulate in biosolids (sewage sludge), limiting their beneficial use; and can facilitate the formation of harmful disinfection byproducts.
Available at:
Available at:
The EPA since 1979 has required zero discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from onshore oil and gas extraction wastewater. In 2016 EPA finalized a rule establishing pretreatment standards for discharges of wastewater from onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction facilities to municipal sewage treatment plants (also known as “publicly owned treatment works” or POTWs).
Many high value water resources are associated with and dependent on their surrounding landscapes. Special Protection Waters are located in the upper portion of the basin where forested headwater areas and riparian buffers slow the rate and volume of stormwater runoff, replenish groundwater that serves as a source of drinking water and sustains stream flow, and control the introduction of pollutants into streams. These landscape features are particularly effective at controlling non-point source pollution that may occur following precipitation events.
High volume hydraulic fracturing and the related alteration of landscapes required to support that activity pose risk to high value water resources. It is expected that practically all of the development and related disturbances from high volume hydraulic fracturing would occur in the drainage area of Special Protection Waters.
The New York State DEC study asserts:
Additional detail regarding damages to water resources and the risks, vulnerabilities and impacts to surface and ground water resources associated with HVHF can be found in the cited reports.
The proposed rules regarding hydraulic fracturing arise from clauses of the Commission's organic statute, the Delaware River Basin Compact (“Compact”),
The Compact recognizes the water and related resources of the Delaware River Basin as regional assets vested with local, state, and national interests, for which the signatory parties have shared responsibility.
By regulation, the Commission has determined that the basin's waters are limited in quantity and that frequent drought warnings and drought declarations are needed due to limited water supply, storage and streamflow during dry periods. For these reasons, the Commission has adopted a policy of discouraging exportations of water from the basin.
The Commission's Special Protection Waters program establishes a water quality objective of no measurable change in existing water quality except towards natural conditions in waters that the Commission has designated as of exceptionally high scenic, recreational, ecological, and/or water supply value. The Commission has so designated virtually all of the non-tidal main stem, as well as the portions of tributaries to the main stem located within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
The Commission has determined that the basin's underground water resources are to be “used, conserved, developed, managed, and controlled in view of the need of present and future generations.” To that end, it has provided by rule that interference, impairment, penetration, or artificial recharge of groundwater may be subject to the Commission's review.
The Commission already has in place a policy to discourage the importation of wastewater into the basin due to the limited capacity of the basin's waters to assimilate waste. Proposals to import produced water and CWT wastewater into the basin will be subject to this policy and to the requirements that alternatives involving no importation be analyzed and that the water resource, economic and social impacts of the proposal be evaluated.
Under the proposed rules, projects involving the treatment and discharge of produced water within the basin must meet the more stringent of applicable federal, state and DRBC requirements. Additional effluent limitations are proposed to apply to such projects for TDS, whole effluent toxicity, and a set of “pollutants of concern” identified on the basis of produced water characterizations provided by EPA in a 2016 technical document.
To provide for appropriate fees to cover the cost of reviews of new classes of projects deemed to require the Commission's approval, changes are also proposed to section 401.43 (regulatory program fees).
The final regulations relating to natural gas development when adopted will supersede and replace the Executive Director's Determinations issued on May 19, 2009, June 14, 2010 and July 23, 2010.
Non-digitized voluminous materials such as books, journals or collected letters/petitions will not be accepted. Digital submissions of these, as well as articles and websites, must be accompanied by a statement containing citations to the specific findings or conclusions the commenter wishes to reference.
• Online
• Online registration to attend will remain open until 5 p.m. the day prior to each hearing.
• On-site registration will be available at all in-person hearing venues.
• Available capacity for each in-person hearing will be posted on the web-based registration system. When users access the system, they will see the number of seats still available or if the venue is at capacity.
• If capacity has been reached for a specific hearing, online registrants will be placed on a waiting list.
• Those who do not register to attend a hearing in advance are advised to check the availability of seats BEFORE planning travel to a hearing.
• Public hearing registrants will be afforded opportunities to request speaking time.
• If more people request to speak than time allows, those not assigned time will be placed on a waiting list.
• If fewer people request to speak than time allows, additional opportunities to request time will be provided on or before the hearing date.
• Elected government officials and their staff will have the opportunity to identify themselves when registering to attend a hearing.
• Written and oral comment will receive equal consideration.
The Commission appreciates the public's participation and input on this important matter. In order to provide as many individuals who wish to speak as possible with an opportunity to do so, each person will be limited to one time slot at one hearing location. Depending on the number who wish to be heard, speakers will be limited to two or three minutes. To ensure that scheduled public hearings meet the objectives of the Commission and the interested public in a safe and orderly process, it is essential that public hearing procedures are understood and followed. Participants are asked to review all DRBC public hearing procedures at:
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Water pollution control, Water resources.
Water pollution control, Water resources, Water supply, Waste treatment and disposal.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Delaware River Basin Commission proposes to amend title 18, chapter III of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Delaware River Basin Compact (75 Stat. 688), unless otherwise noted.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) Except as the Commission may specially direct by notice to the project owner or sponsor, a project in any of the following classifications will be deemed not to have a substantial effect on the water resources of the Basin and is not required to be submitted under section 3.8 of the Compact:
(2) A withdrawal from ground water when the daily average gross
(4) Except as provided at paragraph (b)(18) of this section, the construction of new domestic sewage treatment facilities or alteration or addition to existing domestic sewage treatment facilities when the design capacity of such facilities is less than a daily average rate of 10,000 gallons per day in the drainage area to Outstanding Basin Waters and Significant Resource Waters or less than 50,000 gallons per day elsewhere in the Basin; and all local sewage collector systems and improvements discharging into authorized trunk sewage systems;
(5) Except as provided at paragraph (b)(18) of this section, the construction of new facilities or alteration or addition to existing facilities for the direct discharge to surface or ground waters of industrial wastewater having design capacity of less than 10,000 gallons per day in the drainage area to Outstanding Basin Waters and Significant Resource Waters or less than 50,000 gallons per day elsewhere in the Basin; except where such wastewater contains toxic concentrations of waste materials;
(15) Draining, filling or otherwise altering marshes or wetlands when the area affected is less than 25 acres; provided; however, that areas less than 25 acres shall be subject to Commission review and action where neither a state nor a federal level review and permit system is in effect;
(16) Except as provided at paragraph (b)(19) of this section, the diversion or transfer of water from the Delaware River Basin (exportation) whenever the design capacity is less than a daily average rate of 100,000 gallons;
(18) Except as provided at paragraph (b)(18) of this section, the diversion or transfer of wastewater into the Delaware River Basin (importation) whenever the design capacity is less than a daily average rate of 50,000 gallons; and
(19) To the extent allowed in the basin (
(b) * * *
(14) Leachate treatment and disposal projects associated with landfills and solid waste disposal facilities in the basin;
(17) Any other project that the Commission may specially direct by notice to the project sponsor or land owner as having a potential substantial water quality impact on waters classified as Special Protection Waters.
(18) The importation, treatment, or discharge to basin land or water of “produced water” or CWT wastewater as those terms are defined in § 440.2 of this chapter.
(19) The transfer, diversion or exportation of water from the basin at any volume or rate for uses related to “hydraulic fracturing” as that term is defined in § 440.2 of this chapter.
(c) Regardless of whether expressly excluded from review by paragraph (a) of this section, any project or class of projects that in the view of the Commission could have a substantial effect on the water resources of the basin may, upon special notice to the project sponsor or landowner, be subject to the requirement for review under section 3.8 of the Compact.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1)
(iii)
(2)
(3) * * *
(v) A project involves treatability studies for the discharge of wastewater.
(4) * * *
(iii)
(c)
Delaware River Basin Compact (75 Stat. 688).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Upon the effective date of this rule, the Executive Director Determinations dated May 19, 2009, June 14, 2010 and July 23, 2010, to the extent not already superseded by the Commission's Resolution dated December 8, 2010, are no longer operative.
(e)
(f)
For purposes of this part, the following terms and phrases have the meanings provided. Some definitions differ from those provided in regulations of one or more agencies of the Commission's member states and the federal government.
(a)
(b)
As set forth in section 2.30 of the Delaware River Basin Water Code (“Water Code”) (incorporated by reference at part 410 of this chapter), it is the policy of the Commission to discourage the exportation of water from the Delaware River Basin. Accordingly, the diversion, transfer or exportation of water from sources within the basin to support hydraulic fracturing outside the basin is discouraged. The transfer of surface water, groundwater, treated wastewater or mine drainage water, at any rate or volume, for utilization in hydraulic fracturing of hydrocarbon bearing rock formations outside the basin requires Commission approval in the form of a docket and shall be subject to the evaluation described by section 2.30.4 of the Water Code.
(a)
(2) It is the policy of the Commission to give no credit toward meeting wastewater treatment requirements for wastewater imported into the Basin (
(3) The Commission has determined by Resolution No. 2000-4 that allocations of the waste assimilative capacity of the Delaware River Estuary are necessary to maintain stream quality objectives for acute toxicity and chronic toxicity in Water Quality Zones 2, 3, 4 and 5 and for 1,2 dichloroethane and tetrachloroethene in Water Quality Zones 2 and 3.
(4) It is the policy of the Commission that there be no measurable change in existing water quality except towards natural conditions in waters considered by the Commission to have exceptionally high scenic, recreational, ecological, and/or water supply values. Waters with exceptional values may be classified by the Commission as either Outstanding Basin Waters or Significant Resource Waters. (
(5) Effluents shall not create a menace to public health or safety at the point of discharge. (
(6) The underground water resources of the Basin shall be used, conserved, developed, managed, and controlled in view of the needs of present and future generations, and in view of the resources available to them. To that end, interference, impairment, penetration, or artificial recharge shall be subject to review and evaluation under the Compact. (
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(i) May not be treated within the Basin except at a centralized waste treatment facility (CWT) as that term is defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR part 437 (to convert it to CWT wastewater); and pursuant to an approval issued in accordance with § 440.5(b).
(ii) May not be discharged within the basin without treatment at a CWT.
(2) CWT wastewater as defined in this part may be discharged only:
(i) Directly by the CWT pursuant to an approval issued in accordance with section 440.5(b); or
(ii) Indirectly by a CWT to a wastewater treatment facility within the Basin (via sewer, truck or other means) pursuant to an approval issued in accordance with § 440.5(b),
(iii) Provided that the discharge meets the requirements of § 440.5(f) through (h).
(f)
(1) An analysis, characterization and quantification of all pollutants of concern, as that term is defined in § 440.2, has been conducted and the results submitted to the Commission;
(2) The acute and chronic toxicity of the waste, measured as Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET), have been evaluated;
(3) The treatment technologies and applicable design criteria to be used to meet all requirements of § 440.5(g) have been identified;
(4) The produced water (or CWT wastewater) will not pass through or interfere with the facility's treatment process, and the resulting effluent will meet all applicable limits;
(5) The classification, treatment and disposal of residuals from the facility, if any, will not be adversely affected; and
(6) The discharge will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable water quality criteria or stream quality objectives or impair the existing or protected use of the receiving water.
(g)
(1) For total dissolved solids (TDS):
(i) The effluent shall not exceed background or 500 mg/l, whichever is less,
(ii) Provided, however, that in waters that drain to Delaware River Water Quality Zones 4 through 6, the resulting effluent shall not exceed 1,000 mg/l, or a concentration established by the Commission that is compatible with designated water uses and stream quality objectives.
(iii) The Commission will publish guidance on acceptable methods for determining background TDS concentrations.
(2) For waters for which the protected or designated uses include “public water supplies” or “drinking water”, the effluent shall not exceed the more stringent of EPA's or the host state's
(i) Primary drinking water standards for inorganic chemicals, organic chemicals (excluding acrylamide and epichlorohydrin) and disinfection byproducts; and
(ii) Secondary drinking water standards (excluding color, corrosivity, and odor).
(3) For whole effluent toxicity (WET), the effluent shall not exceed: 0.3 toxic units (acute) and 1.0 toxic units (chronic).
(4) For pollutants of concern as defined in section 440.2 of this part:
(i) For waters that drain to Special Protection Waters, the effluent shall not exceed the background concentration of each pollutant in the receiving water.
(ii) For waters that do not drain to Special Protection Waters:
(A) If pollutant-specific numeric water quality criteria exist, the effluent concentration for the pollutant shall not exceed the numeric criteria.
(B) If pollutant-specific numeric water quality criteria do not exist, the effluent shall not exceed the background concentration of the pollutant in the receiving water or cause an exceedance or violation of any existing narrative criteria.
(C) The Commission will publish guidance on acceptable methods for determining background concentrations for pollutants of concern.
(5) The Commission may require the discharger to perform such monitoring and reporting as the Commission deems necessary to ensure compliance with established numeric effluent limits and to support the development of additional numeric limits if needed.
(h)
(2) To ensure that all conditions, requirements and standards under this rule are met, the Commission may impose additional monitoring requirements or other conditions on any CWT within the basin that discharges CWT wastewater as defined in this part to another wastewater treatment facility in the basin.
(3) A mixing zone may be considered for any pollutant for which a mixing zone is permitted in the Delaware River Estuary by the DRBC Water Quality Regulations (incorporated by reference at part 410 of this chapter).
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations for certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters located between Sandy Point, Anne Arundel County, MD and Kent Island, Queen Anne's County, MD, during a paddling event on June 2, 2018. In the case of inclement weather, the paddling event is scheduled for June 3, 2018. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 12, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-1054 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone 410-576-2674, email
On October 16, 2017, ABC Events, Inc. of Arnold, MD notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the Bay Bridge Paddle from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on June 2, 2018. The third annual kayak and stand up paddle board event for intermediate and elite paddlers includes up to 500 paddlers in two classes operating on two race courses in the Chesapeake Bay. The first course is under and between the north and south bridges that consist of the William P. Lane, Jr. (US-50/301) Memorial Bridges, located between Sandy Point, Anne Arundel County, MD and Kent Island, Queen Anne's County, MD, and the second course is adjacent to Sandy Point State Park at Annapolis, MD. Elite paddlers will operate on a 9-statute mile/14.5-kilometer race course that starts at the east beach area of Sandy Point State Park, proceeds southerly along the shoreline to a point on the course located between north bridge piers 13 and 13A, then easterly along and between the bridges toward the eastern shore at Kent Island and turns around upon reaching a point near Kent Island, then proceeds westerly along and between the bridges toward the western shore, turns upon reaching a point on the course located between north bridge piers 24 and 25, proceeds northerly to the Sandy Point Shoal Lighthouse, and proceeds westerly to a finish at the east beach area of Sandy Point State Park. Intermediate paddlers will operate on a 3.1-statute mile/5-kilometer course that starts at the east beach area of Sandy Point State Park and follows the elite paddlers to the north bridge, then easterly along and between the bridges toward the eastern shore at Kent Island and turns northerly upon reaching a point on the course located between north bridge piers 24 and 25, and proceeds to a finish at the north beach area of Sandy Point State Park. In the case of inclement weather, the event is scheduled from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on June 3, 2018. Hazards from the paddle race include numerous event participants crossing designated shipping channels and interfering with vessels intending to operate within those channels. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that potential hazards associated with the paddle race would be a safety concern for anyone intending to operate within certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, spectators and transiting vessels on certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations.
The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region proposes to establish special local regulations from 7 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on June 2, 2018, and, if necessary due to inclement weather, from 7 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on June 3, 2018. The regulated area would cover all navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay, adjacent to the shoreline at Sandy Point State Park and between and adjacent to the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridges, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn from the western shoreline at latitude 39°01′05.23″ N., longitude 076°23′47.93″ W.; thence eastward to latitude 39°01′02.08″ N., longitude 076°22′58.38″ W.; thence southward to latitude 38°59′57.02″ N., longitude 076°23′02.79″ W.; thence eastward and parallel and 500 yards north of the north bridge span to eastern shoreline at latitude 38°59′13.70″ N., longitude 076°19′58.40″ W.; and bounded to the south by a line drawn parallel and 500 yards south of the south bridge span that originates from the western shoreline at latitude 39°00′17.08″ N., longitude 076°24′28.36″ W.; thence southward to latitude 38°59′38.36″ N., longitude 076°23′59.67″ W.; thence eastward to latitude 38°59′26.93″ N., longitude 076°23′25.53″ W.; thence eastward to the eastern shoreline at latitude 38°58′40.32″ N., longitude 076°20′10.45″ W, located between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 8 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. paddle race event. Except for Bay Bridge Paddle participants, no vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and E.O.s related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of E.O. 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the Chesapeake Bay for six hours. The Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic would be able to safely transit the regulated area once the COTP Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it safe to do so.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area lasting for 6 hours. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, canoe and sail board racing. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c)
(2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, all persons and vessels within the regulated area at the time it is implemented are to depart the regulated area.
(3) Persons and vessels desiring to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area must first obtain authorization from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Prior to the enforcement period, vessels or persons seeking permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the area may contact the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). During the enforcement period, vessels or persons seeking permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the area may contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) for direction.
(4) The Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other Federal, State, and local agencies. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz).
(5) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event date and times.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Cape Fear River in Brunswick County and New Hanover County, North Carolina. This temporary safety zone is intended to restrict vessel traffic on the Cape Fear River while a vessel transports two new Post-Panamax gantry cranes to the North Carolina State Port in Wilmington, North Carolina. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic on the Cape Fear River to protect mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with transporting the assembled gantry cranes. Entry of vessels or persons into this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) North Carolina or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 12, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0965 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, contact Petty Officer Matthew Tyson, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, Wilmington, NC; telephone: 910-772-2221, email:
On August 22, 2017, the North Carolina State Port Authority notified the Coast Guard that they will be transporting two pre-assembled Post-Panamax gantry cranes up the Cape Fear River to the North Carolina State Port in Wilmington, North Carolina. The planned transit date is April 1, 2018 with alternate dates of March 29th, 30th, 31st, April 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, 2018. The transit path will be from the Cape Fear River Entrance Buoy, north through the Cape Fear River to the turning basin, and ending at the North Carolina State Port in Wilmington, North Carolina. The COTP North Carolina has determined that potential safety hazards associated with transporting the gantry cranes would be a concern for anyone transiting the Cape Fear River.
The purpose of this rule is to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters on the Cape Fear River during the transport of the gantry cranes. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone on a portion of the Cape Fear River to be enforced during the transit of a vessel transporting two pre-assembled Post-Panamax gantry cranes up the Cape Fear River on April 1, 2018. The transport is expected to take between five and seven hours. There will be alternate dates of March 29th, 30th, 31st, April 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, 2018 in case severe weather or other conditions prevent the safe transit of the vessel on April 1st. Exact enforcement times will be based on tide schedules and anticipated sea conditions and will be announced by broadcast to mariners at least two days prior to the transit. The safety zone will include all navigable waters of the Cape Fear River from the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS, 72) Demarcation Line drawn from Oak Island Light House to Bald Head Island Abandon Light House noted on NOAA chart 11537 and proceeding north up the Cape Fear River from shore to shore to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, a length of approximately 26 miles. The safety zone will be enforced until the vessel transporting the cranes has been safely moored at North Carolina State Port in Wilmington, North Carolina. The duration of this zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters of the Cape Fear River during the transport of the gantry cranes. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port North Carolina or a designated representative. There will be a pre-designated safety vessel ahead of the transport vessel to monitor the flow of traffic and inform mariners that the gantry crane transit is in progress. Vessels that are less than 40 feet in height and will not impede the transport vessel may request permission to pass through the safety zone or remain in place as the transport vessel passes. The Fort Fisher and Bald Head ferries will be able to operate on their normal schedule as long as the scheduled transit will not come within one mile of the transport vessel and they receive permission from the Captain of the Port North Carolina or a designated representative. The strict height restriction of 40 feet is required because portions of the transported cranes extend over the water on both sides of the transport vessel. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the proposed safety zone. Vessel traffic will not be allowed to enter or transit a portion of the Cape Fear River on April 1, 2018 with alternate dates of March 29th, 30th, 31st, April 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, 2018 for approximately five to seven hours. The Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to Mariners and transmit a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 regarding the safety zone. This portion of the Cape Fear River has been determined to be a high traffic area. This rule allows vessels to request permission to pass through the moving safety zone or remain in place as long as they are under the height restriction of 40 feet.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone on all navigable waters of the Cape Fear River from the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS, 72) Demarcation Line drawn from Oak Island Light House to Bald Head Island Abandon Light House noted on NOAA chart 11537 and proceeding north up the Cape Fear River from shore to shore to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, a length of approximately 26 miles. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) With the exception of participants, entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP North Carolina or the COTP North Carolina's designated representative. All vessels under 40 feet in height within this safety zone when this section becomes effective may request permission to remain in the zone. All other vessels must depart the zone immediately.
(3) To request permission to remain in, enter, or transit through the safety zone, contact the COTP North Carolina or the COTP North Carolina's representative through the Coast Guard Sector North Carolina Command Duty Officer, Wilmington, North Carolina, at telephone number 910-343-3882, or on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 MHz) or channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the state of Montana on September 11, 2013. The submittal revises the portions of the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) that pertain to the East Helena Lead SIP. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (Act).
Written comments must be received on or before February 12, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0634 at
Kevin Leone, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227,
a.
b.
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
The proposed SIP revisions stem from a June 10, 2013, Montana Board of Environmental Review Order (Board Order) removing a stipulated condition in an August 4, 1995 Board Order. The condition limited the allowable concentration of lead in raw feed material at the American Chemet Corporation's East Helena facility. Specifically, American Chemet requested a change to the 1995 Board Order which would eliminate Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B. This subsection reads:
All other East Helena Lead SIP provisions, including direct numerical limits on lead emissions from American Chemet Corporation's East Helena facility, would remain unchanged.
The East Helena Lead SIP includes a “lead in feed” limitation for the American Chemet facility, which was created as part of the Montana
The EPA subsequently promulgated a new, more stringent, lead NAAQS standard (0.15 ug/m
On December 18, 2009, in response to the DEQ's request for the EPA's guidance concerning modifying the 1995 Board order to eliminate Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B, the EPA sent a letter dated December 18, 2009 (See docket) to the DEQ that stated:
1. DEQ must perform modeling sufficient to demonstrate noninterference with the attainment and maintenance of the lead NAAQS (a demonstration for the new standard will suffice for the old standand). AERMOD is appropriate to use for the modeling. If DEQ meets condition 2 below, DEQ may assume in modeling that ASARCO's stack emissions are zero but will need to input appropriate values for any remaining lead emissions from ASARCO, such as fugitive emissions.
2. The State must finalize the revocation of ASARCO's permit and provide us with evidence of, and ASARCO's consent to, the revocation. In the alternative, the SIP revision must state that ASARCO has shut down permanently and that ASARCO would need to go through New Source Review permitting in order to resume operations.”
American Chemet submitted to DEQ a modeling analysis on December 4, 2012 (see docket). The EPA has reviewed the supplied modeling analysis and agrees that the methodology is in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W and the EPA's “Guideline on Air Quality Models.” The AERMOD analysis used the emission limits in the SIP, located in Condition II.A.4.b of the 1995 Board Order, of 0.007 lb/hr and the results of the modeling analysis are valid. The AERMOD modeling analysis shows a concentration of 0.14 ug/m
On December 9, 2009, ASARCO's representative sent a letter to DEQ requesting the revocation of Montana Air Quality Permit (MAQP) #2557. On September 3, 2013, the DEQ sent a letter to the EPA stating that, in a letter dated December 16, 2009, the DEQ notified ASARCO of its intent to revoke MAQP #2557. In accordance with the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 17.8.763, the revocation of MAQP #2557 was final within 15 days of ASARCO's receipt of the letter unless ASARCO requested a hearing before the Board of Environmental Review. ASARCO did not request a hearing; therefore, the revocation of MAQP #2557 became final following the 15-day appeal period. The previously mentioned letters are all available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. In addition, ASARCO's Title V permit expired on April 5, 2007, and DEQ did not receive a renewal application. Any new industrial operations on the former ASARCO site would be required to go through major New Source Review permitting before construction.
The EPA is proposing to approve the state of Montana's revisions, as submitted on September 11, 2013, to remove Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B from the August 4, 1995 Board Order. This Board order is found in the Montana SIP under “EPA-approved Source-Specific Requirements.” The final rulemaking approving the 1995 Board Order for adoption into the SIP can be found at 66 FR 32760.
This revision is in compliance with CAA section 110(l) because it does not change American Chemet's SIP emission limits and modeling has shown that it will not interfere with the 2008 Lead NAAQS. No other criteria pollutant emissions would be impacted by this proposed action. In addition, CAA section 193 does not apply to this revision because the American Chemet limits were approved into the SIP after November 15, 1990. Furthermore, any new industrial construction on the former ASARCO site would be required to go through major New Source Review construction permitting before construction.
In this action, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing the incorporation by reference of a change to the State of Montana's SIP regarding a 1995 Board Order; this action would eliminate
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has submitted updated regulations for receiving delegation of EPA authority for implementation and enforcement of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources). These regulations apply to certain NESHAP promulgated by the EPA, as amended between April 24, 2013 and August 3, 2016. The delegation of authority under this action does not apply to sources located in Indian Country. The EPA is providing notice proposing to approve the delegation of certain NESHAPs to TCEQ.
Written comments should be received on or before February 12, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0061, at
Mr. Rick Barrett, (214) 665-7227; email:
In the final rules section of this issue of the
For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this issue of the
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meetings.
The National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule Committee (Committee) will meet in Washington, DC. Attendees may also listen via webinar and/or conference call. The Committee operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Additional information relating to the Committee, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Committee's website at:
The meetings will be held in-person and streamed via webinar/conference call on the following dates and times:
All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meetings prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the USDA Forest Service, International Programs Office, 1 Thomas Circle NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005. For anyone who would like to attend via webinar and/or conference call, please visit
Crystal Merica, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 202-205-3562, or by email at
The purpose of this meeting is to:
1. Continue deliberations on formulating advice for the Secretary;
2. Discuss Committee work group findings;
3. Hear public comments; and
4. Conduct administrative tasks.
This meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral comments of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral comment should submit a request in writing by January 26, 2018, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to
Crystal Merica, USDA Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination, 201 14th Street SW, Mail Stop 1104, Washington, DC, 20250-1104, or by email at
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (Board) will meet in Rapid City, South Dakota. The Board is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the Federal Public Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. Additional information concerning the Board, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Board's website at:
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 21, 2018, at 1:00 p.m.
All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Forest Service Center, 8221 Mount Rushmore Road, Rapid City, South Dakota.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Scott Jacobson, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 605-440-1409 or by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information
The purpose of the meeting is to provide:
(1) Information Topic: Black Hills National Forest Staffing;
(2) Recreation Site Analysis (RSA);
(3) Over snow use;
(4) Recreation Site Analysis (RSA) update;
(5) Black Hills Resilient Landscape Project update; and
(6) Non-motorized Trails.
The meeting is open to the public and transcripts, documents and minutes will be made available for public inspection. The U.S. Forest Service will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Chairman may allow the public to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by February 12, 2018, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Board may file written statements with the Board's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Scott Jacobson, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 North Fifth Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730; by email to
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of Commission Telephonic Business Meeting.
Friday, January 19, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. EST.
Meeting to take place by telephone.
Brian Walch, (202) 376-8371,
This business meeting is open to the public by telephone only.
Listen Only, Toll Free: 1-800-479-9001; Conference ID: 6075575. Please dial in 5-10 minutes prior to the start time.
Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which
The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 40, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Swagelok Company (Swagelok) located in Solon, Willoughby Hills, Highland Heights, and Strongsville, Ohio. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on December 26, 2017.
The Swagelok facilities are located within Subzone 40I. The facilities are used for production of industrial fittings, finished valves, pressure reducing valves, and regulators. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Swagelok from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production (estimated at 13 percent of production). On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, Swagelok would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: High pressure reinforced plastic hoses; teflon tubing; plastic tubing with fittings; polytetrafluoroethylene and plastic hoses; plastic and nylon fittings and nuts; plastic and teflon ferrules; rubber hoses with and without fittings; rubber hoses with fittings reinforced or otherwise combined with textile materials; non-alloy steel seamless tubing; stainless steel tubing; welded stainless steel tubing; stainless steel flanges; straight or shaped stainless steel fittings; stainless steel butt-weld fittings; threaded, unthreaded, and welded-ends stainless steel fittings; machined flanges of alloy steel not including stainless; straight or shaped steel fittings; steel butt-welded fittings; steel adapter fittings without threads; brass tubes used in brass valve assemblies; brass fittings used in brass valve assemblies; brass fitting ferrules; nuts and ferrule sets used in brass fittings; nickel-chromium alloy tubing; nickel alloy fittings; aluminum ferrules, nuts, and ferrule kits; stainless steel flexible metal tubing; steel flexible tubing with fittings; pressure reducing valves; hydraulic solenoid valves; check valves; relief valves, and diaphragm valves (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 6.2%). Swagelok would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Plastic caps used for component protection in shipping; teflon O-rings for valve connections; rubber gaskets and O-rings to prevent leakage; rubber gripper pads; rubber grommets; rubber bands used in valve applications; grafoil packing; replacement safety glass for pressure gauge lenses; glass face plates for gauges; forged non-alloy steel bars; carbon steel barstock; forged rods; cold finished steel bars; circular, hot formed or extruded hot rolled stainless steel; cold formed stainless steel bars; circular bars or rods of stainless steel barstock; steel angled shapes and sections to be used in valve bodies; unmachined stainless steel flanges; empty sample cylinders for compressed gases or liquids; self-tapping screws of various sizes for valve assemblies; nuts and bolts; steel screws; threaded hardware for valves; nuts for tube support systems; lock and spring washers; stainless steel washers; cotter pins and retaining rings; steel and stainless steel non-threaded hardware; helical springs; spring kits; disc springs for tube supports; circular or hex brass barstock; square copper alloy barstock to machine fittings; brass tube plugs; brass sleeves; nickel alloy barstock; nickel alloy gaskets; aluminum barstock; lead seals for valves; titanium barstock; steel and stainless steel clamps; steel mountings for valve applications; brackets for valve applications; hydraulic motors to open and close valves; non-linear acting air operators to open and close valves; air operator carbon steel mufflers and filters; air and liquid pumps; filters for liquids and gases; filter elements; cutting dies; drill inserts; cut-off blade bases; grooving insert holders; pigging machines—push-on tool assembly; valve and regulator poppets; linear, ball or radial bearings to be used in pumps; bearing housings for plain shaft bearings to be used in pumps; ball or roller screws for gears; machine clutches used in fitting manufacturing machines; rubber, plastic, and steel O-ring sets; direct current (DC) motors between 37.5 watts and 74.6 watts to open and close valves; DC motors between 750 watts and 14.92 kilowatts to open and close valves; alternating current (AC) electric actuators to open and close valves; multiphase AC motors to open and close valves; power supplies or converters; welding machine weld heads; heater cartridges for regulators; transceivers; optical projectors used in valve assemblies; indicator panels for alarms; power connection and termination kits; limit and proximity switches; crimp terminals; insulated ring terminals; butt connectors; electrical controllers; USB power cables or cords; panel faces for valve assembly controllers; lasers used for valve assemblies; thermometers; flow sensors for measuring and checking pressure; pressure gauges; pressure gauge cable fittings—fill plugs and steam syphons; inspection gauges; and, temperature control instruments (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 15%). The request indicates that the following components are subject to antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) orders if imported from certain countries: Carbon steel barstock; hot rolled stainless steel; stainless steel bars; stainless steel barstock; empty sample cylinders for compressed gases or liquids; bolts with nuts; steel screws; threaded hardware for valves; lock and spring washers; helical springs or kits; disc springs for tube supports; brass tube plugs; brass sleeves; brackets for valve applications; parts for hose crimping machines; pigging machines; push-on tool assemblies; bearing housings for plain shaft bearings to be used in pumps; DC motors between 37.5 watts and 74.6 watts to open and close valves; and, heater cartridges for regulators. The FTZ Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.14(e)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders, or items which would be otherwise subject to suspension of liquidation under AD/CVD procedures if they entered U.S. customs territory, be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 21, 2018.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Christopher Wedderburn at
The FTZ Board is inviting public comment on a new submission by the City of Waterville, Maine, grantee of FTZ 186, containing additional information pertaining to the production application of Flemish Master Weavers (FMW). The application, which was subject to a public comment period through August 7, 2017, requests unrestricted authority for FMW to produce machine-made woven area rugs from foreign-status continuous filament polypropylene yarn within Subzone 186A at the FMW facility in Sanford, Maine. The new submission on which the FTZ Board is now inviting public comment includes additional information concerning the supply of domestically-produced continuous filament polypropylene yarn and additional HTSUS Subheadings to describe that yarn.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 12, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to February 26, 2018.
A copy of the submission will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, grantee of FTZ 49, requesting the expansion of Subzone 49C for the facility of E.R. Squibb and Sons, LLC, located in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on January 3, 2018.
The proposed expansion of Subzone 49C will add 0.1258 acres to existing Site 1 (96 acres), located at One Squibb Drive in New Brunswick. No additional authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 21, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to March 8, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, grantee of FTZ 49, requesting the expansion of Subzone 49C for the facility of E.R. Squibb and Sons, LLC, located in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on January 3, 2018.
The proposed expansion of Subzone 49C will add 0.1258 acres to existing Site 1 (96 acres), located at One Squibb Drive in New Brunswick. No additional authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 21, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to March 8, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ
For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add a product and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following product and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 12/8/2017 (82 FR 235), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed revision of two collections of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before March 13, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Nos. 3038-0052 and 3038-0074 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
David Steinberg, Associate Director, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5102; email:
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
In June 2012, the Commission implemented core principles and other requirements for DCMs (“DCM Final Rules”).
Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) added new section 5h to the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) to impose requirements concerning the registration and operation of swap execution facilities (“SEFs”), which the Commission has incorporated in part 37 of its regulations. These information collections are needed for the Commission to ensure that SEFs comply with these requirements. Among other requirements, part 37 of the Commission's regulations imposes SEF registration requirements for a trading platform or system, obligates SEFs to provide transaction confirmations to swap counterparties, and requires SEFs to comply with 15 core principles.
In September 2016, the Commission published a 30-Day Notice of Intent to Renew Collection 3038-0074 (30-Day Renewal Notice) and stated that 23 SEFs were registered with the Commission.
In a separate document published elsewhere in this issue of the
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
• OMB Control No. 3038-0052 (Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets).
• OMB Control No. 3038-0074 (Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities).
The regulations require no new startup or operations and maintenance costs.
(Authority 44 U.S.C. 3501
Pacific Air Forces, Department of the Air Force.
Notice of availability of a record of decision.
The United States Air Force signed the Record of Decision for the F-35A Operational Beddown—Pacific, for the Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement on December 19, 2017. The Record of Decision reflects the Air Force decision to implement the three Proposed Action Alternatives: provide additional stormwater runoff control; develop equipment and material laydown areas; and provide additional heat, water, and power to the South Loop.
The decision was based on matters discussed in the F-35A Operational Beddown—Pacific, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, contributions from the public and regulatory agencies, and other relevant factors. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was made available to the public on October 6, 2017 through a Notice of Availability published in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region 2, of a proposed cost recovery settlement agreement pursuant to CERCLA, between the EPA and 15 settling parties (“Settling Parties”) regarding Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site (“Site”), located in or about Essex and Hudson Counties, New Jersey. Pursuant to the proposed cost recovery settlement agreement, each Settling Party shall pay to EPA $280,600.00 to resolve the Settling Party's civil liability under sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, related to Operable Unit Two of the Site.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 12, 2018.
The proposed settlement agreement is available for public inspection at EPA's Region 2 offices. To request a copy of the proposed settlement agreement, please contact the EPA employee identified in the
Juan M. Fajardo, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, 290 Broadway—17th Floor, New York, NY 10007. Email:
For 30 days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments concerning the proposed cost recovery settlement agreement. Comments to the proposed settlement agreement should reference Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, Index No. CERCLA-02-2017-2023. EPA will consider all comments received during the 30-day public comment period and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement agreement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed settlement agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to comments will be available for public inspection at EPA's Region 2 offices located at 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 13, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 13, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The information collection requirements in this collection are needed to determine the technical, legal, and other qualifications of applicants and licensees to operate a radio station and to determine whether grant of an authorization serves the public interest, convenience and necessity. Without such information, the Commission could not determine whether to permit respondents to provide communications services in the United States. Therefore, the Commission would not be able to fulfill its statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the obligations imposed on parties to the World Trade Organization Basic Telecom Agreement.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning:
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before February 12, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
In the 2015 AM revitalization proceeding, the FCC proposed streamlining certain technical requirements to assist AM broadcasters in providing radio service to consumers. For example, many AM stations must directionalize their signals during some or all of the broadcast day in order to avoid interference with other AM stations. Maintaining a directional signal pattern can be technically complex, time-consuming, and expensive. Such stations are subject to a variety of rules requiring signal strength measurements and other engineering analyses to ensure compliance with their authorizations.
In the AMR Third R&O, the FCC eliminated, clarified, or eased several of the rules governing AM stations using directional antenna arrays, which comprise almost 40 percent of all AM stations. First, the FCC revises 47 CFR 73.154(a) to relax the rule on submission of partial proofs of performance of directional AM antenna arrays by eliminating the requirement to take measurements on non-monitored radials adjacent to monitored radials. Next, the FCC modified several rules pertaining to AM stations that use Method of Moments (MoM) models of directional array performance. MoM modeling allows broadcasters to verify antenna system performance through computer modeling, as opposed to sending engineers in the field to take field strength measurements. Thus, a proof using a MoM model is less expensive than taking field strength measurements of an AM station's directional pattern. Specifically, the FCC: (1) Revised 47 CFR 73.151(c)(1)(ix) to eliminate the requirement of obtaining a registered surveyor's certification, provided that no new towers are being added to an existing AM array; (2) added 47 CFR 73.151(c)(1)(x) to extend the exemption (of having to file a new proof with the FCC) to any AM tower modification that does not affect the modeled values used in the previously submitted license proof; (3) revised 47 CFR 73.151(c)(3) to retain the current requirement for submission of reference field strength measurements in the initial license application, but eliminated the requirement to submit additional reference field strength measurements in subsequent license applications; and
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 8, 2018.
In 1996, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act was amended by Public Law 104-235 to require that any state receiving the Basic State Grant work with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide specific data on child maltreatment, to the extent practicable. These provisions were retained and expanded upon in the 2010 reauthorization of CAPTA (Pub. L. 111-320). Item (17) below was enacted with the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-22). The law goes into effect in 2017 and it is anticipated that states will begin reporting with FFY 2018 data. Item (18) below was enacted with the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA) (Pub. L. 114-198). The law goes into effect in 2017 and it is anticipated that states will begin reporting with FFY 2018 data. Each state to which a grant is made under this section shall annually work with the Secretary to provide, to the maximum extent practicable, a report that includes the following:
1. The number of children who were reported to the state during the year as victims of child abuse or neglect.
2. Of the number of children described in paragraph (1), the number with respect to whom such reports were—
A. substantiated;
B. unsubstantiated; or
C. determined to be false.
3. Of the number of children described in paragraph (2)—
A. the number that did not receive services during the year under the state program funded under this section or an equivalent state program;
B. the number that received services during the year under the state program funded under this section or an equivalent state program; and
C. the number that were removed from their families during the year by disposition of the case.
4. The number of families that received preventive services, including use of differential response, from the state during the year.
5. The number of deaths in the state during the year resulting from child abuse or neglect.
6. Of the number of children described in paragraph (5), the number of such children who were in foster care.
7.
A. The number of child protective service personnel responsible for the—
i. intake of reports filed in the previous year;
ii. screening of such reports;
iii. assessment of such reports; and
iv. investigation of such reports.
B. The average caseload for the workers described in subparagraph (A).
8. The agency response time with respect to each such report with respect to initial investigation of reports of child abuse or neglect.
9. The response time with respect to the provision of services to families and children where an allegation of child abuse or neglect has been made.
10. For child protective service personnel responsible for intake, screening, assessment, and investigation of child abuse and neglect reports in the state—
A. information on the education, qualifications, and training requirements established by the state for child protective service professionals, including for entry and advancement in the profession, including advancement to supervisory positions;
B. data of the education, qualifications, and training of such personnel;
C. demographic information of the child protective service personnel; and
D. information on caseload or workload requirements for such personnel, including requirements for average number and maximum number of cases per child protective service worker and supervisor.
11. The number of children reunited with their families or receiving family preservation services that, within five years, result in subsequent substantiated reports of child abuse or neglect, including the death of the child.
12. The number of children for whom individuals were appointed by the court to represent the best interests of such children and the average number of out of court contacts between such individuals and children.
13. The annual report containing the summary of activities of the citizen review panels of the state required by subsection (c)(6).
14. The number of children under the care of the state child protection system who are transferred into the custody of the state juvenile justice system.
15. The number of children referred to a child protective services system under subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii).
16. The number of children determined to be eligible for referral, and the number of children referred, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxi), to agencies providing early intervention services under part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1431
17. The number of children determined to be victims described in subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxiv).
18. The number of infants—
(A) identified under subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii);
(B) for whom a plan of safe care was developed under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii); and
(C) for whom a referral was made for appropriate services, including services for the affected family or caregiver, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii).
The Children's Bureau proposes to continue collecting the NCANDS data through the two files of the Detailed Case Data Component, the Child File (the case-level component of NCANDS) and the Agency File (additional aggregate data, which cannot be collected at the case level). Technical assistance will be provided so that all states may provide the Child File and Agency File data to NCANDS.
The reauthorization of CAPTA, subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxiv), specifies for “requiring identification and assessment of all reports involving children known or suspected to be victims of sex trafficking (as defined in section 103(10) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102 (10)); and S. 178-38.” To comply with the new reporting requirements for item 17, NCANDS will use a new field in the Child File.
The Children's Bureau proposes to modify the Child File by modifying the maltreatment fields.
• Add a new maltreatment type code, 7=sex trafficked, to the existing Fields 26, 28, 30, 32 (Maltreatment-1 Type, Maltreatment-2 Type, Maltreatment-3 Type, Maltreatment-4 Type).
The reauthorization of CAPTA, subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii), specifies collecting the number of (A) screened-in and screened-out referrals from healthcare providers involved in the delivery or care of infants and who referred such infants born with and identified as being affected by substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure, or a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder; (B) of those screened-in, for whom a plan of safe care was developed, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii); and (C) of those screened-in, for whom a referral was made for appropriate services, including services for the affected family or caregiver, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii). To comply with the new reporting requirements for item 18, NCANDS will use a combination of existing fields in the Child File and a new field in the Agency File.
The Children's Bureau proposes to modify the Agency File by adding 1 new field, under Section 2, Referrals and Reports.
• 2.5. Number of screened-out referrals from healthcare providers involved in the delivery or care of infants and who referred such infants born with and identified as being affected by substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure, or a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.
The Children's Bureau proposes to modify the Child File by adding two new fields.
• Field 151, Has A Safe Care Plan: The Safe Care Plan field will establish a flag as to whether a child has a safe care plan.
• Field 152, Referral to CARA-Related Services: The Referral to CARA-related Services field will establish a flag as to whether a referral was made for appropriate services, including services for the affected family or caregiver.
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability; reopening of the comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is reopening the comment period for the notice of availability, published in the
FDA is reopening the comment period on the notice of availability published October 13, 2017 (82 FR 47749). Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by February 12, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Elizabeth Giaquinto Friedman, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1670, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7930.
In the
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on factors for applicants to consider when determining which one of the abbreviated approval pathways under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is appropriate for the submission of a marketing application to FDA. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
The Agency has received a request for a 30-day extension of the comment period for the draft guidance. The request conveyed concern that the requestor did not have sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the draft guidance.
FDA has considered the request and is reopening the comment period for the draft guidance for 30 days, until February 12, 2018. The Agency believes that a 30-day reopening of the comment period allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments to ensure that the Agency can consider the comments on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is extending the comment period for the notice of availability that appeared in the
FDA is extending the comment period on the notice of availability published December 20, 2017 (82 FR 60402). Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by February 18, 2018, to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Aaron Friedman, Office of Orphan Products Development, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5295, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-8660.
In the
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on orphan designation of drugs and biologics for pediatric subpopulations of common diseases. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can
Based on public interest in the draft guidance, FDA is extending the comment period for the notice of availability for 30 days, until February 28, 2018. The Agency believes that a 30-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying guidance on these important issues.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before March 13, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the medical device PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN. PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN is indicated for the treatment of adult men who have stress incontinence arising from intrinsic sphincter deficiency of at least 12 months duration following radical prostatectomy or transurethral resection of the prostate and who have failed to respond adequately to conservative therapy. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,014,606 and 7,828,716) from Uromedica, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated November 10, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN is 3,892 days. Of this time, 3,179 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 713 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,827 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Fogarty International Center Advisory Board.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information or new collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 13, 2018.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0095 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0027. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice of public meeting; request for public comment.
We, the U.S. Department of the Interior, announce a public meeting of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and a request for written comments. This meeting, the 39th biannual meeting of the task force, provides a forum for coordinated planning and action among Federal agencies, State and territorial governments, and nongovernmental partners.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, February 22, 2018, from 08:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Submit advance public comments by January 29, 2018. Submit requests for copies of comments given at the meeting by March 30, 2018.
Meeting will be held at the Department of Interior, Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.
Submit advance public comments or requests for copies of comments given at the meeting to Liza Johnson, U.S. Coral Reef Task Force Steering Committee Co-Chair, U.S. Department of the Interior, MS-3530-MIB, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240; or via email to
Liza Johnson, U.S. Coral Reef Task Force Steering Committee Co-Chair, U.S. Department of the Interior, MS-3530-MIB, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240 (phone: 202-208-1378; fax: 202-208-4867; email:
Established by Presidential Executive Order 13089 in 1998, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force has a mission to lead, coordinate, and strengthen U.S. government actions to better preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems. The Departments of Commerce and the Interior co-chair the Task Force, whose members include leaders of 12 Federal agencies, 2 U.S. States, 5 U.S. territories, and 3 freely associated States. For more information about the meetings, draft agendas, and how to register, go to
Attendees can register online before the start of the meeting, or on site at the registration desk. Registration details will be announced on the task force website at
Comments may address the meeting, the role of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, or general coral reef conservation issues. Advance public comments should be submitted by January 29, 2018. Copies of comments given at the meeting can be submitted afterwards in writing to Liza Johnson by email, fax, or mail (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Office of the Assistant Secretary—Water and Science, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, announces the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System, as authorized by the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act. The FEIS responds to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement during the comment period that ended on February 27, 2017, and identifies Alternative E as the preferred alternative for the Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System.
The Department of the Interior will complete a Record of Decision identifying the actions that will be implemented no sooner than 30 days after publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability in the
The FEIS is available for viewing on the following websites:
Ms. Sarah Branum, Environmental Project Manager, Bureau of Reclamation,
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) prepared the FEIS in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Indian Health Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pueblo de San Ildefonso, Pueblo of Nambé, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico Department of Transportation, Santa Fe County, and the City of Santa Fe. The FEIS has been updated according to public comments received during the 45-day Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) public review period (January 13-February 27, 2017) and other project updates. A summary of changes between the DEIS and FEIS is included in Chapter 1 of the FEIS.
Among other provisions, the RWS and 2,220 acre-feet per year of new water supply to the basin are included in the Settlement Agreement in exchange for the Pueblos agreeing to reduce their claims to water within the basin and to limit their priority calls against existing non-Pueblo water users. The Settlement Agreement also addresses funding for other water-related projects on the Settlement Pueblos.
1. Firm, reliable water supply.
2. Primary source water collection.
3. Water treatment.
4. Short-term storage.
5. Water transmission and distribution system, including pipelines, pumping plants, forebay tanks, and other associated facilities.
6. Electrical power service.
1. The firm, reliable water supply would be provided by diverting surface flows from the Rio Grande, supplemented by operational planning and scheduling of San Juan-Chama Project water supplies, as well as one of the following three backup aquifer storage and recovery water supply options:
• Three deep injection and recovery wells for injecting raw or treated surface water into an aquifer and recovering it for use in the RWS; or
• Three shallow injection and recovery wells for injecting raw or treated surface water into an aquifer and recovering it for use in the RWS; or
• Three shallow passive infiltration reaches and recovery wells for infiltrating raw surface water into an aquifer and recovering it for use in the RWS.
2. A side-channel surface diversion structure and pumping plant with a sediment removal and return system on the east bank of the Rio Grande on Pueblo de San Ildefonso lands, just north of the Otowi Bridge.
3. A water treatment plant and pumping plant on the Pueblo de San Ildefonso on the south side of State Highway 502, approximately 0.75 mile east of the Otowi Bridge.
4. Eleven new short-term storage tanks in addition to 13 existing storage tanks.
5. A water transmission and distribution system including approximately 194 miles of pipelines, seven pumping plants, and pressure-reducing and flow-control valves.
6. Approximately 15 miles of new electrical distribution lines.
1. The firm, reliable water supply would be provided by collecting flows from beneath and adjacent to the Rio Grande (the hyporheic zone), supplemented by operational planning and scheduling of San Juan-Chama Project water supplies.
2. A parallel river interceptor drain in the alluvium to collect water from below the water table in the bosque on the east side of the Rio Grande north of the Otowi Bridge.
3. A water treatment plant on the eastern portion of the Pueblo de San Ildefonso, on the east side of County Road 101D, near the El Rancho power substation.
4. Eleven new short-term storage tanks in addition to 13 existing storage tanks.
5. A water transmission and distribution system including approximately 189 miles of pipelines, one surge tank, six pumping plants, and pressure-reducing and flow-control valves.
6. Approximately 7 miles of new electrical distribution lines supplemented by distributed solar generation.
1. The firm, reliable water supply would be provided by collecting flows from the hyporheic zone of the Rio Grande, supplemented by operational planning and scheduling of San Juan-Chama Project water supplies.
2. An infiltration gallery (an estimated 180 horizontal drains to collect water from below the water table) on the east bank of the Rio Grande.
3. A water treatment plant on the eastern portion of the Pueblo de San Ildefonso, on the east side of County Road 101D, near the El Rancho power substation.
4. Sixteen new short-term storage tanks in addition to 13 existing tanks.
5. A water transmission and distribution system, including approximately 187 miles of pipelines, one surge tank, six pumping plants, and pressure-reducing and flow-control valves.
6. Approximately 7 miles of new electrical distribution lines, with solar-ready facilities.
1. The firm, reliable water supply would be provided by collecting flows from the hyporheic zone of the Rio Grande and supplementing it with operational planning and scheduling of San Juan-Chama Project water supplies; emergency use wells would allow water to be withdrawn during emergencies lasting longer than two days that cannot be supplied by short-term storage tanks.
2. Four horizontal radial well collectors to divert water from below the water table on the east bank of the Rio Grande.
3. A water treatment plant located on the west side of County Road 101D, north of State Highway 502.
4. Seven new short-term storage tanks, in addition to 14 existing storage tanks.
5. A water transmission and distribution system, including approximately 151 miles of pipelines, one surge tank, 6 pumping plants, and pressure-reducing and flow-control valves.
6. Approximately 7 miles of new overhead and buried electrical distribution lines, with solar-ready facilities.
• Natural Resources Library, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240-0001.
• Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Public Affairs Office, 125 South State Street, Room 8100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138.
• Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque Area Office, 555 Broadway NE, Suite 100, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102.
• Santa Fe County Pojoaque Satellite Office, 5 West Gutierrez, Suite 9, Pojoaque, New Mexico 87506 (in the Pojoaque Pueblo Plaza).
• Santa Fe Public Library, 145 Washington Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501.
• New Mexico State Library, 1209 Camino Carlos Rey, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507.
• Santa Fe Community College Library, 6401 Richards Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho, in 30 days from the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709, upon required payment.
Timothy A. Quincy, (208) 373-3981 Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709-1657. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with Mr. Quincy. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice with the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho, Bureau of Land Management. The protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest and contain all reasons and evidence in support of the protest. The protest must be filed before the scheduled date of official filing for the plat(s) of survey being protested. Any protest filed after the scheduled date of official filing will be untimely and will not be considered. A protest is considered filed on the date it is received by the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho during regular business hours; if received after regular business hours, a protest will be considered filed the next business day. If a protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a protest, you should be aware that the documents you submit, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), are proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 13, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Jerome Jackson, Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Policy and Administration, 84-57000, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225-0007; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Jerome Jackson by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, or continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of Reclamation; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might Reclamation enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might Reclamation minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
In addition, there are an estimated 140 number of contacts who will not respond. These non-respondents account for 1 total burden hour per year.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice; announcement of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of information collection requirements.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration announces that OMB extended its approval for a number of information collection requirements found in a number of OSHA's standards and regulations. OSHA sought approval of these requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), and, as required by that Act, is announcing the approval numbers and expiration dates for these requirements and regulations.
This notice is applicable January 12, 2018.
Theda Kenney,
In a series of
In accordance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), OMB approved these information collection requirements. The table below provides the following information for each of these requirements approved by OMB: The title of the
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an agency cannot conduct, sponsor, or require a response to a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number and the Agency informs respondents that they need not respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comment.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the National Fall Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by March 13, 2018.
Theda Kenney or Charles McCormick, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
Falls are a leading cause of death for employees. According to 2015 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, falls accounted for 350 of the 937 construction fatalities, and 648 of the 4,836 fatalities in all recorded industries. The National Fall Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction raises fall hazard awareness across the country in an effort to stop fall fatalities and injuries. The Stand-Down is the biggest safety outreach event ever conducted by the Agency. OSHA has collaborated with countless industry leaders and employers over the last four years to reach over 7.5 million workers during Stand-Downs.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply. For example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB approve the information collection requirements contained in the National Fall Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction (29 U.S.C. 669). OSHA is proposing a burden hour estimate of seven hundred sixty-five (765) hours. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in its Telecommunications Standard.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by March 13, 2018.
Theda Kenney, or Charles McCormick, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
Under the paperwork requirements specified by paragraph (c) of the Standard, an employer must certify that his or her workers have been trained as specified by the training provision of the Standard. Specifically, employers must prepare a certification record which includes the identity of the person trained, the signature of the employer or the person who conducted the training, and the date the training was completed. The certification record shall be prepared at the completion of training and shall be maintained on file for the duration of the employee's employment. The information collected will be used by employers as well as by compliance officers to determine whether employees have been trained according to the requirements set forth in 29 CFR 1910.268(c).
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply. For example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard on Telecommunications (29 CFR 1910.268). The burden hours have decreased based on the reduced number of telecommunication workers installing and repairing lines and equipment from 215,810 to 205,360. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to decrease the existing burden hour estimate for the collection of information requirements specified by the Standard from 4,532 to 3,765 (difference of 767 hours). The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Cotton Dust Standard.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by March 13, 2018.
Charles McCormick or Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The information collection requirements specified in the Cotton Dust Standard protect workers from the adverse health effects that may result from their exposure to cotton dust. The major information collection requirements of the Cotton Dust Standard include: Performing exposure monitoring, including initial, periodic, and additional monitoring; notifying each worker of their exposure monitoring results either in writing or by posting; implementing a written compliance program; and establishing a respiratory protection program in accord with OSHA's Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134).
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply. For example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting to decrease its current burden hours from 21,549 to 9,532 hours, a total decrease of 12,017 hours. The decrease was due to a decrease in the number of exposed employees from 11,786 to 4,957. In addition, there was a $1,555,336 decrease in the overall cost of medical exams (from $2,896,328 to $1,340,992), as a result of a decrease in the number of medical exams.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Request for information.
The Chief Statistician of the United States and the Statistical and Science Policy Branch (SSP) in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) seek to establish priorities and coordinate research efforts across the Federal Statistical System to focus on improving federal statistics. In particular, a priority has been placed on using new techniques and methodologies based on combining data from multiple sources. To support this effort, information is requested on: (1) Current and emerging techniques for linking and analyzing combined data; (2) on-going research on methods to describe the quality of statistical products that result from these techniques; (3) computational frameworks and systems for conducting such work; (4) privacy or confidentiality issues that may arise from combining such data; and (5) suggestions for additional research in those or related areas. While there are regulatory and statutory constraints on combining data within the federal government, the information sought concerns how best to combine data once they are accessed appropriately and successfully. The intent is for the research to inform the adoption of revised statistical standards regarding the use of such combined data for federal purposes, including but not limited to the production of principal key economic indicators and demographic statistical products.
Submit written comments within 60 days of publication date.
All responses must be submitted electronically to the following email address:
You will receive an electronic confirmation acknowledging receipt of your response, but will not receive individualized feedback.
Response to this Request for Information (RFI) is voluntary. Any personal identifiers (
This RFI is for information and planning purposes only. It should not be construed as a solicitation or as an obligation on the part of the Federal Government, the Office of Management and Budget, the Chief Statistician of the United States or SSP. OMB does not intend to make any awards based on responses to this RFI or to otherwise pay for the preparation of any information submitted or for the Government's use of such information.
Bob Sivinski, Statistician, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building Room 9257, 725 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20006; telephone: (202) 395-1205 (this is not a toll-free number).
The federal government produces a wide array of statistical data that are a critical national resource. The use of these data are central to our democracy and include: Supporting constitutional duties, such as reapportionment of the House of Representatives; allocating resources to states, localities, tribes, businesses and individuals; supporting good planning at all levels of federal, state, local and tribal governments; describing our economic wellbeing; providing evidence to address critical problems facing our nation, such as opioid addiction; supporting informed public and private decision making that will create jobs and improve our infrastructure; and creating opportunities for local communities.
These statistics use well-tested and documented processes that rely on censuses, sample surveys or administrative records. However, the federal government is facing a number of challenges for these traditional methods supporting informational needs of the future. It is well documented
The Chief Statistician of the United States and SSP are well aware of these issues and are seeking to change the paradigm underlying the production of these statistics. The Federal Statistical System must adopt new methods and standards to provide statistics that continue to meet the data needs of our nation for the 21st century. Given the existing environment, an important component of this transformation will be based on combining data from multiple sources to produce statistical products and information.
Important work in the area of combining data from multiple sources has been conducted; see,
This RFI seeks to identify published works, current and planned research, and descriptions of best practices taking place in private sector firms and academic institutions related to combining data from multiple sources to produce statistical data and products. The RFI is also seeking suggestions for new areas of research that the federal government should pursue in order to adopt new methods for combining data from multiple sources to produce statistics. These include but are not limited to: Computational environments for accessing and processing multiple data sources; measurement and documentation of the quality of statistical data derived from combining multiple data sources; new techniques for harmonizing and linking multiple data sources; issues regarding privacy and disclosure avoidance, standards for describing the fitness for use of key statistics based on combined data sources; and principles for curating and disseminating these new data and associated products. In addition, descriptions of and citations to papers or projects where data have been combined to do analyses that highlight sources of data that may be useful for government data integration, or how new data sources can be helpful in assessing how federal statistics can be better structured and presented to increase their value to the nation, are welcome. Finally, the RFI is seeking information on tested best practices related to securing partnerships across data holders and providing access to secondary users.
The Chief Statistician of the United States and SSP plan to consider this input in focusing Federal Statistical System research efforts, including the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, on a program that informs policy and provides guidance on the Federal use of data combined from multiple sources.
Weeks of January 15, 22, 29, February 5, 12, 19, 2018.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 29, 2018.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 12, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 19, 2018.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
The ACRS Subcommittee on APR1400 will hold meetings on January 24-25, 2018, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B1, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The meetings will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meetings shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review APR1400 design control document Chapter 4 (Reactor), Chapter 14.1 (Specific Information to be Addressed for the Initial Plant Test Program) & 14.2 (Initial Plant Test Program), Chapter 16 (Technical Specifications), and Chapter 18 (Human Factors Engineering). The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christopher Brown (Telephone 301-415-7111 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC website at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. After registering with Security, please contact Ms. Kendra Freeland (Telephone 301-415-6207) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
The Exchange proposes to establish a Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program on a pilot basis, for an initial period of twelve months from the date of approval of this proposed rule change.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this rule filing is to add new Supplementary Material .07 to ISE Rule 2009, Terms of Index Options Contracts, to permit the listing and trading, on a pilot basis, of p.m.-settled options on broad-based indexes with nonstandard expiration dates for an initial period of twelve months (the “Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program” or “Pilot Program”) from the date of approval of this proposed rule change. The Pilot Program would permit both weekly expirations (“Weekly Expirations”) and end of month (“EOM”) expirations as explained below. Contract terms for the Weekly Expirations and EOM expirations will be similar to those of the a.m. settled broad-based index options, except that the exercise settlement value will be based on the index value derived from the closing prices of component stocks.
The Exchange proposes to add new Supplementary Material .07(a), Weekly Expirations, to Rule 2009. Under the proposed new rule the Exchange would be permitted to open for trading Weekly Expirations on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on any Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month or days that coincide with an EOM expiration).
The maximum number of expirations that could be listed for each Weekly Expiration (
Weekly Expirations that are first listed in a given class could expire up to four weeks from the actual listing date. If the last trading day of a month were a Monday, Wednesday, or Friday and the Exchange were to list EOMs and Weekly Expirations as applicable in a given class, the Exchange would list an EOM instead of a Weekly Expiration in the given class. Other expirations in the same class would not be counted as part of the maximum number of Weekly Expirations for a broad-based index class. If the Exchange were not open for business on a respective Monday, the normally Monday expiring Weekly Expirations would expire on the following business day. If the Exchange were not open for business on a respective Wednesday or Friday, the normally Wednesday or Friday expiring Weekly Expirations would expire on the previous business day.
Pursuant to proposed ISE Rule 2009 Supplementary Material .07(b), End of Month (“EOM”) Expirations, the Exchange could open for trading EOMs on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on last trading day of the month. EOMs would be subject to all provisions of Rule 2009 and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month. However, the EOMs would be P.M.-settled and new series in EOMs could be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring EOM.
The maximum number of expirations that could be listed for EOMs in a given class would be the same as the maximum number of expirations permitted for standard options on the same broad-based index. EOM expirations would not need to be for consecutive end of month expirations. However, the expiration date of a non-consecutive expiration may not be beyond what would be considered the last expiration date if the maximum number of expirations were listed consecutively. EOMs that are first listed in a given class could expire up to four weeks from the actual listing date. Other expirations would not be counted as part of the maximum numbers of EOM expirations for a broad-based index class.
Weekly Expirations and EOMs would be subject to the same rules that currently govern the trading of standard monthly broad-based index options, including sales practice rules, margin requirements, and floor trading procedures. Contract terms for Weekly Expirations and EOMs would be the same as those for standard monthly broad-based index options. Since Weekly Expirations and EOMs will be a new type of series, and not a new class, the Exchange proposes that Weekly Expirations and EOMs shall be aggregated for any applicable reporting and other requirements.
The Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any additional traffic associated with the listing of the maximum number
As stated above, this proposal is to establish a Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program for broad-based index options on a pilot basis, for an initial period of twelve months from the date of approval of this proposed rule change. If the Exchange were to propose an extension of the Pilot or should the Exchange propose to make the Pilot permanent, the Exchange would submit a filing proposing such amendments to the Pilot.
Further, any positions established under the Pilot would not be impacted by the expiration of the Pilot. For example, if the Exchange lists a Weekly Expiration or EOM that expires after the Pilot expires (and is not extended) then those positions would continue to exist. However, any further trading in those series would be restricted to transactions where at least one side of the trade is a closing transaction.
As part of the Pilot, the Exchange will submit a Pilot report to the Commission at least two months prior to the expiration date of the Pilot (the “annual report”). The annual report will contain an analysis of volume, open interest and trading patterns. In addition, for series that exceed certain minimum open interest parameters, the annual report will provide analysis of index price volatility and, if needed, share trading activity. The annual report will be provided to the Commission on a confidential basis.
For all Weekly Expirations and EOM series, the annual report will contain the following volume and open interest data for each broad-based index overlying Weekly Expiration and EOM options:
(1) Monthly volume aggregated for all Weekly Expiration and EOM series,
(2) Volume in Weekly Expiration and EOM series aggregated by expiration date,
(3) Month-end open interest aggregated for all Weekly Expiration and EOM series,
(4) Month-end open interest for EOM series aggregated by expiration date and open interest for Weekly Expiration series aggregated by expiration date,
(5) Ratio of monthly aggregate volume in Weekly Expiration and EOM series to total monthly class volume, and
(6) Ratio of month-end open interest in EOM series to total month-end class open interest and ratio of open interest in each Weekly Expiration series to total class open interest.
In addition, the annual report will contain the information noted above for standard Expiration Friday, AM-settled series, if applicable, for the period covered in the pilot report as well as for the six-month period prior to the initiation of the pilot.
Upon request by the SEC, the Exchange will provide a data file containing: (1) Weekly Expiration and EOM option volume data aggregated by series, and (2) Weekly Expiration open interest for each expiring series and EOM month-end open interest for expiring series.
In the annual report, the Exchange also proposes to identify Weekly Expiration and EOM trading patterns by undertaking a time series analysis of open interest in Weekly Expiration and EOM series aggregated by expiration date compared to open interest in near-term standard Expiration Friday A.M.-settled series in order to determine whether users are shifting positions from standard series to Weekly Expiration and EOM series. In addition, to the extent that data on other weekly or monthly P.M. settled products from other exchanges is publicly available, the report will also compare open interest with these options in order to determine whether users are shifting positions from other weekly or monthly P.M. settled products to the Weekly Expiration and EOM series. Declining open interest in standard series or the weekly or monthly P.M.-settled products of other exchanges accompanied by rising open interest in Weekly Expiration and EOM series would suggest that users are shifting positions.
For each Weekly Expiration and EOM expiration that has open interest that exceeds certain minimum thresholds, the annual report will contain the following analysis related to index price changes and, if needed, underlying share trading volume at the close on expiration dates:
(1) A comparison of index price changes at the close of trading on a given expiration date with comparable price changes from a control sample. The data will include a calculation of percentage price changes for various time intervals and compare that information to the respective control sample. Raw percentage price change data as well as percentage price change data normalized for prevailing market volatility, as measured by an appropriate index agreed by the Commission and the Exchange, will be provided; and
(2) if needed, a calculation of share volume for a sample set of the component securities representing an upper limit on share trading that could be attributable to expiring in-the-money Weekly Expiration and EOM expirations. The data, if needed, will include a comparison of the calculated share volume for securities in the sample set to the average daily trading volumes of those securities over a sample period.
The minimum open interest parameters, control sample, time intervals, method for selecting the component securities, and sample periods will be determined by the Exchange and the Commission.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intramarket competition as all market participants will be treated in the same manner with respect to Weekly Expirations and EOMs. Additionally, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition as market participants are welcome to become members and trade at ISE if they determine that this proposed rule
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. In particular, the Commission solicits comment on the following:
• Will the pilot data contemplated in this notice allow the Commission to determine whether the weekly and monthly PM-settled options proposed in this filing have adverse effects on market volatility and the operation of fair and orderly markets in the underlying cash market?
• Will the pilot data contemplated in this notice allow the Commission to determine whether the weekly and monthly PM-settled options proposed in this filing have adverse effects on liquidity, volume, open interest, trading patterns, and volatility in other option contracts with standard expirations?
• Will the pilot data contemplated in this notice allow the Commission to determine whether the weekly and monthly PM-settled options proposed in this filing have adverse effects on index price volatility?
• Will the weekly and monthly PM-settled options proposed in this filing affect the market for options contracts with nonstandard expirations offered by CBOE and Phlx? If so, how? In addition, how would this proposal affect the data and information related to nonstandard expirations that are provided by CBOE and Phlx?
• What concerns do market participants have related to the proposed Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program? If any, please be specific in describing your concerns. If any, will the pilot data contemplated in this notice allow the Commission to examine whether the concerns are valid?
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The “Exchange proposes to amend its rules related to stop orders.
(a) No change.
(b) Automatic Execution: Orders eligible for automatic execution through the Cboe Options Hybrid System may be automatically executed in accordance
(i)-(vi) No change.
(c) No change.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change amends Rule 6.13 to modify the automatic handling of stop and stop-limit orders. As defined in Rule 6.53(c), a stop order is a contingency order to buy or sell when the market for a particular option contract reaches a specified price on the Cboe Options floor. A stop order to buy becomes a market order when the option contract trades or is bid at or above the stop price on the Cboe Options floor. A stop order to sell becomes a market order when the option contract trades or is offered at or below the stop-limit price on the Cboe Options floor. A stop-limit order is a contingency order to buy or sell when the market for a particular option contract reaches a specified price. A stop order to buy becomes a limit order when the option contract trades or is bid at or above the stop-limit price. A stop-limit order to sell becomes a limit order when the option contract trades or is offered at or below the stop-limit price.
The proposed rule change adds Rule 6.13(b)(vii), which states the System cancels a buy (sell) stop or stop-limit order if the Exchange best bid (offer) (“BBO”) at the time the System receives the order is equal to or above (below) the stop price. The purpose of a stop or stop-limit order is for it to become a market or limit order, respectively, after the price in a series reaches the stop price. Therefore, there is an implication the submitting Trading Permit Holder intends for the order to not become a market or limit order, respectively, until after an amount of time passes and the series price changes. If the BBO is above or below, as applicable, the stop price when the System receives a stop or stop-limit order, the order converts immediately to a market or limit order, respectively. This is inconsistent with the purpose of the order and the intentions of the submitting Trading Permit Holder. The Exchange believes if a Trading Permit Holder submitted an order at such a price, there is a strong possibility the order was submitted at that price as an error by the Trading Permit Holder. Pursuant to the proposed rule change, the System will reject a stop or stop-limit order that would otherwise immediately convert to a market or limit order, respectively, based on the BBO, which is consistent with the definitions and purposes of these orders.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed rule change will protect investors and the public interest and maintain fair and orderly markets by mitigating potential risks associated with market participants entering stop and stop-limit orders at unintended prices, and risks associated with orders trading at prices that are potentially erroneous, which may likely have resulted from human or operational error. The proposed rule change is consistent with the definitions and purposes of stop and stop-limit orders.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will apply in the same manner to all stop and stop-limit orders Trading Permit Holders submit to the Exchange and will help prevent potentially erroneous executions, which benefits all market participants. Because pursuant to the proposed rule change the System will reject stop and stop-limit orders it receives under certain conditions, the proposed rule change will only impact stop and stop-limit orders Trading Permit Holders submit to the Exchange, based on quotes on the Exchange, and thus will have no impact on intermarket competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. Footnotes 24 and 25 describe the Market-Maker Trading Permit Sliding Scale and Floor Broker Trading Permit Sliding Scale programs, respectively.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. Footnotes 24 and 25 describe the Market-Maker Trading Permit Sliding Scale and Floor Broker Trading Permit Sliding Scale programs, respectively.
Generally, the Exchange issues a Regulatory Circular to remind Trading Permit Holders of this notification deadline, including a description of how Trading Permit Holders should notify the Registration Services Department. However, for the 2018 sliding scale program, the Exchange was unable to issue a reminder until December 22, 2017, which is the business day prior to December 25, 2017, and thus the notification deadline. To ensure Trading Permit Holders have sufficient time to provide notification to the Exchange regarding their tier commitments for 2018, the Exchange
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
Cboe Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will impose no burden on competition, as it only modifies a deadline for participation in fee programs available at the Exchange, which participation is voluntary, and which deadline will apply to all Trading Permit Holders that elect to participate in these programs.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules related to stop orders.
System orders and quotes shall be executed consistent with the following provisions:
(a)-(h) No change.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change amends Rule 6.12 to modify the automatic handling of stop and stop-limit orders. As defined in Rule 6.10(c), a stop order is a contingency order to buy or sell when the market for a particular option contract reaches a specified price on the Exchange. A stop order to buy becomes a market order when the option contract trades or is bid at or above the stop price on the Exchange. A stop order to sell becomes a market order when the option contract trades or is offered at or below the stop-limit price on the Exchange. A stop-limit order is a contingency order to buy or sell when the market for a particular option contract reaches a specified price on the Exchange. A stop order to buy becomes a limit order when the option contract trades or is bid at or above the stop-limit price on the Exchange. A stop-limit order to sell becomes a limit order when the option contract trades or is offered at or below the stop-limit price on the Exchange.
The proposed rule change adds Rule 6.12(i), which states the System cancels a buy (sell) stop or stop-limit order if the Exchange best bid (offer) (“BBO”) at the time the System receives the order is equal to or above (below) the stop price. The purpose of a stop or stop-limit order is for it to become a market or limit order, respectively, after the price in a series reaches the stop price. Therefore, there is an implication the submitting Trading Permit Holder intends for the order to not become a market or limit order, respectively, until after an amount of time passes and the series price changes. If the BBO is above or below, as applicable, the stop price when the System receives a stop or stop-limit order, the order converts immediately to a market or limit order, respectively. This is inconsistent with the purpose of the order and the intentions of the submitting Trading Permit Holder. The Exchange believes if a Trading Permit Holder submitted an order at such a price, there is a strong possibility the order was submitted at that price as an error by the Trading Permit Holder. Pursuant to the proposed rule change, the System will reject a stop or stop-limit order that would otherwise immediately convert to a market or limit order, respectively, based on the BBO, which is consistent with the definitions and purposes of these orders.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed rule change will protect investors and the public interest and maintain fair and orderly markets by mitigating potential risks associated with market participants entering stop and stop-limit orders at unintended prices, and risks associated with orders trading at prices that are potentially erroneous, which may likely have resulted from human or operational error. The proposed rule change is consistent with the definitions and purposes of stop and stop-limit orders.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will apply in the same manner to all stop and stop-limit orders Trading Permit Holders submit to the Exchange and will help prevent potentially erroneous executions, which benefits all market participants. Because pursuant to the proposed rule change the System will reject stop and stop-limit orders it receives under certain conditions, the proposed rule change will only impact stop and stop-limit orders Trading Permit Holders submit to the Exchange, based on quotes on the Exchange, and thus will have no impact on intermarket competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order pursuant to: (a) Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) granting an exemption from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements and transactions. Applicants request an order that would permit certain registered open-end management investment companies to participate in a joint lending and borrowing facility.
Harbor Funds, a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management series investment company, and Harbor Capital Advisors, Inc. (the “Adviser”), registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
The application was filed on June 13, 2017 and amended on November 15, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail.
Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 2, 2018 and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act,
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: 111 South Wacker Drive, 34th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606.
Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6817, or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would permit the applicants to participate in an interfund lending facility where each Fund could lend money directly to and borrow money directly from other Funds to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls, such as unanticipated redemptions or trade fails.
2. Applicants anticipate that the proposed facility would provide a borrowing Fund with a source of liquidity at a rate lower than the bank borrowing rate at times when the cash position of the Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. In addition, Funds making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from investing their cash in repurchase agreements or certain other short-term money market instruments. Thus, applicants assert that the facility would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Among others, the Adviser, through a designated committee, would administer the facility as a disinterested fiduciary as part of its duties under the investment management agreements with each Fund and would receive no additional fee as compensation for its services in connection with the administration of the facility. The facility would be subject to oversight and certain approvals by the Funds' Board, including, among others, approval of the interest rate formula and of the method for allocating loans across Funds, as well as review of the process in place to evaluate the liquidity implications for the Funds. A Fund's aggregate outstanding interfund loans will not exceed 15% of its net assets, and the Fund's loans to any one Fund will not exceed 5% of the lending Fund's net assets.
4. Applicants assert that the facility does not raise the concerns underlying section 12(d)(1) of the Act given that the Funds are part of the same group of investment companies and there will be no duplicative costs or fees to the Funds.
5. Applicants also believe that the limited relief from section 18(f)(1) of the Act that is necessary to implement the facility (because the lending Funds are not banks) is appropriate in light of the conditions and safeguards described in the application and because the Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1) that all borrowings of a Fund, including combined interfund loans and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage.
6. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Rule 17d-1(b) under the Act provides that in passing upon an application filed under the rule, the Commission will consider whether the participation of the registered investment company in a joint enterprise, joint arrangement or profit sharing plan on the basis proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of the other participants.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees, as described further below.
While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendments to be operative on January 2, 2018.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees to (i) eliminate the annual regulatory fee currently assessed to Market Makers (
GEMX currently charges its members various non-transaction fees to trade on the Exchange and use its facilities, including a tiered annual regulatory fee. This fee is assessed to all Primary Market Makers (“PMMs”) and Competitive Market Makers (“CMMs”) to help defray the regulatory and administrative costs associated with a member's use of the Exchange's facilities. In particular, the regulatory fee is $1,000 per year for a PMM membership, and, for PMMs that are also CMMs, $250 per year for each CMM membership. For CMMs that are not also PMMs the regulatory fee is $500 per year for the first CMM membership, and $250 per year for each additional CMM membership.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the annual regulatory fee and all related references from the Schedule of Fees because it has determined that this fee is outdated and no longer reflects the costs associated with supporting and regulating its members today. The annual regulatory fee was adopted in 2013, and has not been amended since that time.
Currently, the Exchange's Schedule of Fees contains a number of section headings that are not currently reflected in the Table of Contents. The Exchange added, eliminated, or renamed these headings as part of a previously-approved rule change, and inadvertently did not make the corresponding updates to the Table of Contents.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed elimination of the annual regulatory fee and all related references from the Schedule of Fees is reasonable because the Exchange has determined that the annual regulatory fee is outdated and no longer reflects the costs associated with supporting and regulating its members. This fee has not been amended since its adoption in 2013. Furthermore, GEMX charges its members various non-transaction fees outside of the annual regulatory fee to help defray such costs, as noted above. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed fee change will be a more accurate reflection of the administration and regulatory costs associated with a member's use of the Exchange today.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed elimination of the annual regulatory fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change will apply equally to all similarly situated members.
The Exchange believes that the clean-up changes to update the Table of Contents is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because these are non-substantive changes
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed above, the proposed changes are intended to more accurately reflect the regulatory and administrative costs associated with a member's use of the Exchange, or are clean-ups to make the Schedule of Fees more transparent to members and investors. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the Market Data section of its fee schedule applicable to its equity options platform (“EDGX Options”) to adopt fees for certain of its market data products, which are currently offered free of charge. The Exchange also proposes to amend the names of these market data products in Exchange Rule 21.15(b).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Market Data section of its fee schedule applicable to EDGX Options to adopt fees for certain of its market data products, which are currently offered free of charge. The Exchange also proposes to amend the names of these market data products in Exchange Rule 21.15(b).
The Exchange proposes to adopt fees for the following market data products: EDGX Options Depth (currently referred to as Multicast PITCH), EDGX Options Top (currently referred to Multicast Top), and EDGX Options Auction Feed. Each of these market data products are currently offered free of charge. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 21.15(b) to revise the names of each of these market data products.
Multicast Pitch, to be renamed as EDGX Options Depth, is a data feed that offers depth of book quotations and execution information based on options orders entered into the System.
Multicast TOP, to be renamed as EDGX Options Top, is a data feed that offers top of book quotations and execution information based on options orders entered into the System.
Finally, the Auction Feed, to be renamed the EDGX Options Auctions Feed, is a data feed that provides information regarding the current status of price and size information related to auctions conducted by the Exchange.
The Exchange now proposes to amend its fee schedule to incorporate fees for distribution of each of the above market data products to subscribers. The proposed fees include the following, each of which are described in detail below: (i) Distribution Fees for both Internal and External Distributors;
Distributors that receive either the simple or complex versions of EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and/or the EDGX Options Auction Feed will be required to count every Professional User and Non-Professional User to which they provide the market data product(s), the requirements for which are identical to that currently in place for other market data products offered by the Exchange's equity trading platform.
• In connection with a Distributor's distribution of the market data product, the Distributor should count as one User each unique User that the Distributor has entitled to have access to the market data product. However, where a device is dedicated specifically to a single individual, the Distributor should count only the individual and need not count the device.
• The Distributor should identify and report each unique User. If a User uses the same unique method to gain access to the market data product, the Distributor should count that as one User. However, if a unique User uses multiple methods to gain access to the market data product (
• Distributors should report each unique individual person who receives access through multiple devices as one User so long as each device is dedicated specifically to that individual.
• If a Distributor entitles one or more individuals to use the same device, the Distributor should include only the individuals, and not the device, in the count.
The Exchange intends to implement the proposed changes to its fee schedule on January 2, 2018.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act
In addition, the proposed fees would not permit unfair discrimination because all of the Exchange's customers and market data vendors will be subject to the proposed fees on an equivalent basis. EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX Options Auction Feed are distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make this data available. Accordingly, Distributors and Users can discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Firms have a wide variety of alternative market data products from which to choose, such as similar proprietary data products offered by other exchanges and consolidated data. Moreover, the Exchange is not required to make any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers.
In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are constrained by competition. As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the existence of alternatives to EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX Options Auction Feed further ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect such alternatives. That is, the Exchange competes with other exchanges (and their affiliates) that provide similar market data products. If another exchange (or its affiliate) were to charge less to distribute its similar product than the Exchange charges to distribute EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX Options Auction Feed, prospective Users likely would not subscribe to, or would cease subscribing to, EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX Options Auction Feed.
The Exchange notes that the Commission is not required to undertake a cost-of-service or rate-making approach. The Exchange believes that, even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory, cost-based pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated that it could not be done practically.
In addition, the proposed fees are reasonable when compared to similar fees for comparable products offered by PHLX. Specifically, PHLX charges a fee of $40 per month to professional users and $1.00 per month to non-professional users of TOPO Plus Orders feed, Top of PHLX Options, and PHLX Depth Data.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The Exchange's ability to price EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX Options Auction Feed is constrained by: (i) Competition among exchanges, other trading platforms, and Trade Reporting Facilities (“TRF”) that compete with each other in a variety of dimensions; (ii) the existence of inexpensive real-time consolidated data and market-specific data and free delayed data; and (iii) the inherent contestability of the market for proprietary data.
The Exchange and its market data products are subject to significant competitive forces and the proposed fees represent responses to that competition. To start, the Exchange competes intensely for order flow. It competes with the other national securities exchanges that currently trade equities, with electronic communication networks, with quotes posted in FINRA's Alternative Display Facility, with alternative trading systems, and with securities firms that primarily trade as principal with their customer order flow.
In addition, EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX Options Auction Feed compete with a number of alternative products. For instance, EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX Options Auction Feed do not provide a complete picture of all trading activity in a security. Rather, the other national securities exchanges, the several TRFs of FINRA, and Electronic Communication Networks (“ECN”) that produce proprietary data all produce trades and trade reports. Each is currently permitted to produce last sale information products, and many currently do, including Nasdaq and NYSE. In addition, market participants can gain access to EDGX Options last sale and depth-of-book quotations, though integrated with the prices of other markets, on feeds made available through the SIPs.
In sum, the availability of a variety of alternative sources of information imposes significant competitive pressures on Exchange data products and the Exchange's compelling need to attract order flow imposes significant competitive pressure on the Exchange to act equitably, fairly, and reasonably in setting the proposed data product fees. The proposed data product fees are, in part, responses to that pressure. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees would reflect an equitable allocation of its overall costs to users of its facilities.
In addition, when establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all Users. The existence of alternatives to EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX Options Auction Feed, including existing similar feeds by other exchanges, consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns any particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 6, 2017, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the “Exchange” or “BOX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Currently, BOX Rule 7600(f) provides that a Floor Broker holding an order of the eligible order size or greater is entitled to cross, after all equal or better priced Public Customer bids or offers on the BOX Book and any non-Public Customer bids or offers that are ranked ahead of such Public Customer bids or offers are filled, 40% of the remaining contracts in the order with other orders he is holding.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission notes that the proposed rule change does not modify the size of the Floor Broker guarantee, but rather modifies the size of the order necessary in order to receive the guarantee. Orders submitted by Floor Brokers for execution must execute at a price equal to or better than the NBBO and (1) may not trade through any equal or better priced Public Customer bids or offers on the BOX Book
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than March 13, 2018.
Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding these information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than March 13, 2018. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
* We do not account for the Electronic Records Express internet screens here as we account for them under OMB Control No. 0960-0753.
Social Security Administration.
Notice announcing updated penalty inflation adjustments for civil monetary penalties for 2018.
The Social Security Administration is giving notice of its updated maximum civil monetary penalties. These amounts are effective from January 15, 2018 through January 14, 2019. These figures represent an annual adjustment for inflation. The updated figures and notification are required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.
The updated maximum amount of civil money penalties in this notice
Joseph E. Gangloff, Chief Counsel to the Inspector General, Room 3-ME-1, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 966-4440, both directly and for IPTTY. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call the Social Security Administration's national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit the Social Security Administration's internet site, Social Security Online, at
On June 27, 2016, pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act),
$7,623.00 (current maximum per violation for fraud facilitators in a position of trust) × 1.02041 (OMB-issued inflationary adjustment multiplier) = $7,778.59. When rounded to the nearest dollar, the new maximum penalty is $7,779.00.
$8,084.00 (current maximum per violation for all other violators) × 1.02041 (OMB-issued inflationary adjustment multiplier) = $8,248.99. When rounded to the nearest dollar, the new maximum penalty is $8,249.00.
$10,055.00 (current maximum per violation for all violations other than broadcasts or telecasts) × 1.02041 (OMB-issued inflationary adjustment multiplier) = $10,260.22. When rounded to the nearest dollar, the new maximum penalty is $10,260.00.
$50,276.00 (current maximum per broadcast or telecast) × 1.02041 (OMB-issued inflationary adjustment multiplier) = $51,302.13. When rounded to the nearest dollar, the new maximum penalty is $51,302.00.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Romance and Reason: Islamic Transformations of the Classical Past,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, New York, New York, from on or about February 14, 2018, until on or about May 13, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.
Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Department of State.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Department of State (Department) is advising the public that on January 3, 2018, the Department approved a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on the Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA) for the Borrego Pipeline Presidential Permit Application.
The FONSI and Final EA are available as of the publication date of this notice at
Copies of the FONSI and Final EA are available at the following:
Copies of the FONSI and Final EA may also be requested by email at
Executive Order (E.O.) 13337 delegates to the Secretary of State the President's authority to receive applications for permits for the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of facilities for the exportation or importation of petroleum, petroleum products, coal, or other fuels (except for natural gas), at the borders of the United States, and to issue or deny such Presidential permits upon a national interest determination.
On August 12, 2016, Borrego submitted an application for a new Presidential permit that would authorize the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of facilities at the U.S.-Mexico border for the export to Mexico of refined petroleum products (including gasoline, premium gasoline, ultra-low sulfur diesel, and jet fuel). The petroleum products would be transported through the new pipeline between a new terminal in Laredo, Texas, and the existing Nuevo Laredo Terminal in Tamaulipas, Mexico.
The Department prepared the Final EA consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. Section 4321,
Elkhart & Western Railroad Co. (EWR), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire and operate 9.58 miles of rail line owned by CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) between Monon, Ind., (Milepost 0QA-88.42) and Monticello, Ind., (Milepost 0QA-98.00) in White County, Ind. (the Line).
EWR states that it has reached agreement in principle with CSXT, the current owner and operator of the Line, providing for EWR to acquire, operate, maintain, and perform all common carrier service on the Line. EWR states that it will interchange with CSXT at Monon, Ind. EWR also states that the proposed acquisition and operation of the Line does not involve a provision or agreement that would limit future interchange with a third-party connecting carrier.
EWR certifies that the proposed transaction will not result in EWR becoming a Class II or Class I rail carrier and that the projected annual revenue of EWR will not exceed $5 million.
The transaction may be consummated on or after January 27, 2018, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than January 19, 2018 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. 36163, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Daniel A. LaKemper, Elkhart & Western Railroad Co., 1318 S. Johanson Road, Peoria, IL 61607.
According to EWR, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic reporting requirements under 49 CFR 105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
As part of its regular business meeting held on December 8, 2017, in Annapolis, Maryland, the Commission took the following actions: (1) Approved or tabled the applications of certain water resources projects; and (2) took additional actions, as set forth in the Supplementary Information below.
December 8, 2017.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: 717-238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: 717-238-2436;
In addition to the actions taken on projects identified in the summary above and the listings below, the following items were also presented or acted upon at the business meeting: (1) Adoption of a resolution urging President Trump and the United State Congress to provide full funding for the national Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program, thereby supporting the Susquehanna Flood Forecast & Warning System; (2) adoption of amended Commission's By-laws and Procedures to reflect revisions to officers' duties, clarification of budget and financial procedures, and other changes in accordance with the Susquehanna River Basin Compact; (3) approval of a grant amendment and acceptance of a contribution; (4) adoption of final rules, subject to final member jurisdiction review, pertaining to the amendment of Commission regulations to codify and strengthen the Commission's Access to Records Policy.
The Commission approved the following project applications:
1. Project Sponsor and Facility: Beech Creek Borough Authority, Beech Creek
2. Project Sponsor and Facility: Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (Meshoppen Creek), Lemon Township, Wyoming County, Pa. Modification to increase surface water withdrawal by an additional 0.500 mgd (peak day), for a total surface water withdrawal of up to 1.000 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20170302).
3. Project Sponsor and Facility: Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. (Susquehanna River), Athens Township, Bradford County, Pa. Renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.750 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20131202).
4. Project Sponsor and Facility: Houtzdale Municipal Authority, Gulich Township, Clearfield County, Pa. Groundwater withdrawal of up to 1.008 mgd (30-day average) from Well 14R.
5. Project Sponsor and Facility: LHP Management, LLC (Fishing Creek), Bald Eagle Township, Clinton County, Pa. Surface water withdrawal of up to 0.999 mgd (peak day).
6. Project Sponsor and Facility: Martinsburg Municipal Authority, North Woodbury Township, Blair County, Pa. Renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.346 mgd (30-day average) from Wineland Well 3 (Docket No. 19870304).
7. Project Sponsor and Facility: Borough of Mifflinburg, West Buffalo Township, Union County, Pa. Modification to request a reduction in the withdrawal rate of Well PW-2 from 0.554 mgd to 0.396 mgd (30-day average), and to eliminate wetlands monitoring condition (Docket No. 20141203).
8. Project Sponsor and Facility: Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC (Choconut Creek), Choconut Township, Susquehanna County, Pa. Renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.999 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20131211).
9. Project Sponsor: SUEZ Water Pennsylvania Inc. Project Facility: Shavertown Operation, Dallas Township, Luzerne County, Pa. Groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.288 mgd (30-day average) from the Salla Well.
10. Project Sponsor and Facility: SWN Production Company, LLC (Lycoming Creek), Lewis Township, Lycoming County, Pa. Renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.500 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20131209).
11. Project Sponsor and Facility: SWN Production Company, LLC (Lycoming Creek), McIntyre Township, Lycoming County, Pa. Renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.500 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20131210).
12. Project Sponsor and Facility: Village of Waverly, Tioga County, N.Y. Groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.320 mgd (30-day average) from Well 1.
13. Project Sponsor and Facility: Village of Waverly, Tioga County, N.Y. Groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.480 mgd (30-day average) from Well 2.
14. Project Sponsor and Facility: Village of Waverly, Tioga County, N.Y. Groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.470 mgd (30-day average) from Well 3.
The Commission tabled action on the following project applications:
1. Project Sponsor and Facility: Brymac, Inc. dba Mountain View Country Club (Pond 3/4), Harris Township, Centre County, Pa. Application for surface water withdrawal of up to 0.240 mgd (peak day).
2. Project Sponsor and Facility: Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (East Branch Tunkhannock Creek), Lenox Township, Susquehanna County, Pa. Application for surface water withdrawal of up to 1.000 mgd (peak day).
3. Project Sponsor and Facility: Schuylkill Energy Resources, Inc., Mahanoy Township, Schuylkill County, Pa. Application for renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 5.000 mgd (30-day average) from Maple Hill Mine Shaft Well (Docket No. 19870101).
4. Project Sponsor and Facility: Schuylkill Energy Resources, Inc., Mahanoy Township, Schuylkill County, Pa. Application for renewal of consumptive use of up to 2.550 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 19870101).
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.
Notice of Monetary Penalties 2018.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is providing notice of its maximum civil money penalties as adjusted for inflation. The inflation adjustments are required to implement the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.
The adjusted maximum amount of civil money penalties in this notice are applicable to penalties assessed on or after January 12, 2018, for conduct occurring on or after November 2, 2015.
Kevin Korzeniewski, Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 649-5490, or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
This notice announces changes to the maximum amount of each civil money penalty (CMP) within the OCC's jurisdiction to administer to account for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the 1990 Adjustment Act),
To the extent an agency has codified a CMP amount in its regulations, the agency would need to update that amount by regulation. However, if an agency has codified the formula for making the CMP adjustments, then subsequent adjustments can be made solely by notice.
On December 15, 2017, the OMB issued guidance to affected agencies on implementing the required annual adjustment, which included the relevant inflation multiplier. The OCC has applied that multiplier to the maximum CMPs allowable in 2017 for national banks and federal savings associations in 12 CFR 19.240(c) and 109.103(c), respectively, to calculate the maximum amount of CMPs that may be assessed by the OCC in 2018.
The following charts provide the inflation-adjusted CMPs for use beginning on January 12, 2018, pursuant to 12 CFR 19.240(c) and 109.103(c) for conduct occurring on or after November 2, 2015:
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before February 12, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Quintana by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(a)(2), that a meeting will be held at the Hay-Adams Hotel,
The agenda for the meeting provides for a charge by the Secretary of the Treasury or his designate that the Committee discuss particular issues and conduct a working session. Following the working session, the Committee will present a written report of its recommendations. The meeting will be closed to the public, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d) and Public Law 103-202, 202(c)(1)(B)(31 U.S.C. 3121 note).
This notice shall constitute my determination, pursuant to the authority placed in heads of agencies by 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d) and vested in me by Treasury Department Order No. 101-05, that the meeting will consist of discussions and debates of the issues presented to the Committee by the Secretary of the Treasury and the making of recommendations of the Committee to the Secretary, pursuant to Public Law 103-202, 202(c)(1)(B). Thus, this information is exempt from disclosure under that provision and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3)(B). In addition, the meeting is concerned with information that is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A). The public interest requires that such meetings be closed to the public because the Treasury Department requires frank and full advice from representatives of the financial community prior to making its final decisions on major financing operations. Historically, this advice has been offered by debt management advisory committees established by the several major segments of the financial community. When so utilized, such a committee is recognized to be an advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 3.
Although the Treasury's final announcement of financing plans may not reflect the recommendations provided in reports of the Committee, premature disclosure of the Committee's deliberations and reports would be likely to lead to significant financial speculation in the securities market. Thus, this meeting falls within the exemption covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A).
Treasury staff will provide a technical briefing to the press on the day before the Committee meeting, following the release of a statement of economic conditions and financing estimates. This briefing will give the press an opportunity to ask questions about financing projections. The day after the Committee meeting, Treasury will release the minutes of the meeting, any charts that were discussed at the meeting, and the Committee's report to the Secretary.
The Office of Debt Management is responsible for maintaining records of debt management advisory committee meetings and for providing annual reports setting forth a summary of Committee activities and such other matters as may be informative to the public consistent with the policy of 5 U.S.C. 552(b). The Designated Federal Officer or other responsible agency official who may be contacted for additional information is Fred Pietrangeli, Director for Office of Debt Management (202) 622-1876.
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Notice of open public hearing.
Notice is hereby given of the following hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
The Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, and report to Congress annually on “the national security implications of the economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China.” Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission will hold a public hearing in Washington, DC, on January 25, 2018 on “China's Belt and Road Initiative: Five Years Later.”
The hearing is scheduled for Thursday, January 25, 2018 from 9:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.
TBD, Washington, DC. A detailed agenda for the hearing will be posted on the Commission's website at
Any member of the public seeking further information concerning the hearing should contact Leslie Tisdale, 444 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; telephone: 202-624-1496, or via email at
(b) Within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary shall report to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy recording DOI's progress in identifying the assets that can be used to support rural broadband deployment and adoption.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, a Joint Action Plan that describes concrete actions to provide, to the extent consistent with law, seamless access to mental health treatment and suicide prevention resources for transitioning uniformed service members in the year following discharge, separation, or retirement.
(c) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, a status report on the implementation of the Joint Action Plan and how the proposed reforms have been effective in improving mental health treatment for all transitioning uniformed service members and veterans. The report shall include:
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Regulatory Information Service Center.
Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
Publication of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions and the Regulatory Plan represent key components of the regulatory planning mechanism prescribed in Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” January 30, 2017, and Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” February 24, 2017. The fall editions of the Unified Agenda include the agency regulatory plans required by E.O. 12866, which identify regulatory priorities and provide additional detail about the most important significant regulatory actions that agencies expect to take in the coming year.
In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish semiannual “regulatory flexibility agendas” describing regulatory actions they are developing that will have significant effects on small businesses and other small entities (5 U.S.C. 602).
The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda), published in the fall and spring, helps agencies fulfill all of these requirements. All federal regulatory agencies have chosen to publish their regulatory agendas as part of this publication. The complete Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan can be found online at
The fall 2017 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
The complete fall 2017 Unified Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans of 30 Federal agencies and 60 Federal agency regulatory agendas.
Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, 2219F, Washington, DC 20405.
For further information about specific regulatory actions, please refer to the agency contact listed for each entry.
To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this publication, contact: John C. Thomas, Executive Director, Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), U.S. General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, 2219F, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 482-7340. You may also send comments to us by email at:
The fall 2017 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
The following agencies have no entries for inclusion in the printed regulatory flexibility agenda. An asterisk (*) indicates agencies that appear in The Regulatory Plan. The regulatory agendas of these agencies are available to the public at
The Regulatory Information Service Center compiles the Unified Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and information resource management activities, including implementation of Executive Order 12866 (incorporated in Executive Order 13563). The Center also provides information about Federal regulatory activity to the President and his Executive Office, the Congress, agency officials, and the public.
The activities included in the Agenda are, in general, those that will have a regulatory action within the next 12 months. Agencies may choose to include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12 months. Agency agendas also show actions or reviews completed or withdrawn since the last Unified Agenda. Executive Order 12866 does not require agencies to include regulations concerning military or foreign affairs functions or regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel matters.
Agencies prepared entries for this publication to give the public notice of their plans to review, propose, and issue regulations. They have tried to predict their activities over the next 12 months as accurately as possible, but dates and schedules are subject to change. Agencies may withdraw some of the regulations now under development, and they may issue or propose other regulations not included in their agendas. Agency actions in the rulemaking process may occur before or after the dates they have listed. The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda do not create a legal obligation on agencies to adhere to schedules in this publication or to confine their regulatory activities to those regulations that appear within it.
Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339) requires each agency to identify for elimination two prior regulations for every one new regulation issued, and the cost of planned regulations be
Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” February 24, 2017 (82 FR 12285) requires each agency to designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO shall oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. The Executive Order also directs that each agency designate a regulatory Reform Task Force.
Each agency's section of the Plan contains a narrative statement of regulatory priorities and, for most agencies, a description of the agency's most important significant regulatory and deregulatory actions. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains a preamble providing information specific to that agency plus descriptions of the agency's regulatory and deregulatory actions.
The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all participating agencies. Unlike the printed edition, the online Agenda has no fixed ordering. In the online Agenda, users can select the particular agencies' agendas they want to see. Users have broad flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To further differentiate these two stages of rulemaking in the Unified Agenda from active rulemakings, Long-Term and Completed Actions are reported separately from active rulemakings, which can be any of the first three stages of rulemaking listed above. A separate search function is provided on
A bullet (•) preceding the title of an entry indicates that the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.
In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry in this edition. The sequence number is used as the reference in the printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online Unified Agenda because the unique Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is able to provide this cross-reference capability.
Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained several indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. These included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions that may have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 or other effects on levels of government. These indexes are no longer compiled, because users of the online Unified Agenda have the flexibility to search for entries with any combination of desired characteristics. The online edition retains the Unified Agenda's subject index based on the
All entries in the online Unified Agenda contain uniform data elements including, at a minimum, the following information:
As defined in Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking action that will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or will adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The definition of an “economically significant” rule is similar but not identical to the definition of a “major” rule under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104-121). (See below.)
A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the agency anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or rules that are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or may not be included in the agency's regulatory plan.
A rulemaking that has substantive impacts, but is neither Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/Administrative/Other.
A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations and that does not alter the body of the regulation.
A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public of the activity.
Some agencies have provided the following optional information:
The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
□
□ A reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.
Copies of the
Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly from the agency or may be found on the agency's website. Please contact the particular agency for further information.
All editions of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions since fall 1995 are available in electronic form at
The Government Printing Office's GPO FDsys website contains copies of the Agendas and Regulatory Plans that have been printed in the
Following statutory directions, the Executive Branch implements many federal policies through regulatory action in areas as diverse as homeland security, environmental protection, energy policy, transportation, federal land management, education, and commerce. Over many decades, federal agencies have imposed countless regulatory requirements on individuals, businesses, landowners, and state and local governments. Some of these regulations serve important public purposes. Other regulations, however, are outdated, duplicative, or unnecessary, yet they continue to impose costly burdens. President Trump has committed to reducing the regulatory burden on the American public in order to promote economic growth, job creation, and innovation.
This Fall 2017 Regulatory Plan reflects a fundamental shift. The Trump Administration recognizes that excessive and unnecessary federal regulations limit individual freedom and suppress the innovation and entrepreneurship that make America great. Starting with confidence in private markets and individual choices, this Administration is reassessing existing regulatory burdens. In the 2017 Plan, Agencies have identified regulatory actions ripe for reform and are working to eliminate or modify them. This Administration also approaches the imposition of new regulatory requirements with caution to ensure that regulations are consistent with law, necessary to correct a substantial market failure, and net beneficial to the public. Furthermore, the Plan, along with the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (“Agenda”), identifies the Administration's priorities in manner that is transparent and accessible to the public.
Our regulatory philosophy and approach emphasize the connection between limited government intervention and individual liberty. Regulatory policy should serve the American people by staying within legal limits and administering the law with respect for due process and fair notice. The 2017 Plan sets forth the Administration's roadmap for a more limited, effective, and accountable regulatory policy.
The 2017 Plan both sets a new direction in regulatory policy and preserves many longstanding regulatory best practices. Stressing that “it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations,” President Trump directed all federal agencies to eliminate two regulations for each new one implemented and to reduce new regulatory costs to zero in Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” January 30, 2017). He also created regulatory reform officers and regulatory reform taskforces in each agency in Executive Order 13777 (“Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” February 24, 2017). Within the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) implements federal regulatory policy and has led efforts to implement these presidential directives, working with agencies to identify deregulatory actions and eliminate regulatory burdens.
OIRA also continues to respect and pursue longstanding principles and practices of centralized regulatory review. These principles, set out in President Clinton's Executive Order 12866, emphasize that agencies should regulate only when necessary, when consistent with law, and in a manner that produces real net benefits for the American people. The Administration also takes seriously retrospective review and the imperative to evaluate the actual costs and benefits of existing regulations. The President's two-for-one directive and the creation of a regulatory cap requires that agencies eliminate unnecessary or excessively burdensome rules as part of their regulatory planning.
OIRA works with agencies to promote sound science and economic analysis. Agencies should develop improved regulatory impact analyses of the costs and benefits of their actions, relying on reasonable assumptions and public input. In some instances, analysis will require revisiting previous regulatory impact assessments to ensure that they
This Administration's regulatory philosophy also emphasizes the rule of law, including constitutional, statutory, and procedural limits on administrative action. For instance, OIRA requires agencies to indicate the legal authority for regulatory actions, whether from a statute or judicial order. We look closely at planned regulatory and deregulatory actions to ensure that they follow the law and the correct administrative procedures.
Moreover, the Administration has reinforced the importance of fair notice and due process. In particular, this means agencies should closely examine their use of sub-regulatory actions, such as guidance documents, enforcement manuals, interpretive rules, “FAQs,” and the like. Such documents can serve an important role in explaining existing statutory or regulatory requirements; however, they should not be used to impose new or additional legal obligations or requirements. Accordingly, this Administration has encouraged agencies to take a close look at existing guidance documents to assess whether some of them should be withdrawn or modified, or whether their requirements should go through a process of notice and comment rulemaking. Limiting guidance to its intended purpose of clarifying existing law rather than making new law will provide greater transparency about the regulatory process and ensure that regulated entities and the public have notice and an opportunity to comment on significant changes in regulatory requirements.
These specific policies rest on foundational principles of the proper role of the Executive Branch in our constitutional system of separation of powers. Agencies should administer the law found in statutes, not make new law, and they should respect the judicial role in enforcing limits on administrative power. Moreover, faithful execution of the laws requires the Administration be directly accountable for its regulatory policies and ensure that regulations and their enforcement benefit the American people.
Agencies have taken several approaches to identifying burdens that can be minimized or eliminated. Regulatory reform task forces have brought together political leadership and career staff to review and revise existing regulations. Agencies have sought extensive public comments, both through written submissions and public listening sessions. Other agencies have studied specific problems of overregulation and drafted comprehensive reports evaluating existing regulations. Based on extensive experience across administrations, OIRA has also worked with the agencies to identify potential areas for reform. These efforts by the agencies, in consultation with the public and OIRA, have yielded notable progress, as reflected in the agency Regulatory Plans that follow.
OIRA has also implemented enhanced categorization and online search capabilities for the Agenda, so the public can identify actions anticipated to be regulatory or deregulatory and other detailed information. We hope these enhancements will further public understanding of proposed regulatory actions and encourage participation in the regulatory process.
The agency plans that follow push against the inertia of steadily expanding regulatory burdens and represent this Administration's commitment to reducing regulations that no longer benefit our society. The plans also send a clear message that the public can invest and plan for the future without the looming threat of burdensome and unnecessary new regulations. OIRA looks forward to working with the agencies and all interested stakeholders to deliver meaningful regulatory reform to the American people.
Regulatory reform is one of the cornerstones of the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) strategy for creating a culture of consistent, efficient service to our customers, while reducing burdens and improving efficiency. USDA's regulatory reform efforts, combined with other reform efforts, will make it easier to invest, produce, and build in rural America, which will lead to the creation of jobs and enhanced economic prosperity. To achieve results, USDA is guided by the following comprehensive set of priorities through which the Department, its employees, and external partners will work to identify and eliminate regulatory and administrative barriers and improve business processes to enhance program delivery and reduce burdens on program participants. These priorities include:
These reforms and strategies allow the Department to best support the needs of its customers. Through the implementation of these improvements, USDA will be better positioned to remove obstacles, and give agricultural
The Department's fall 2017 Statement of Regulatory Priorities reflects the Administration's commitment to regulatory reform and USDA's rigorous implementation of Executive Orders 13777 and 13771.
Executive Order 13777 establishes a Federal policy to lower regulatory burdens on the American people by implementing and enforcing regulatory reform. The RRTF reviewed proposed, pending and existing regulations to determine the deregulatory and regulatory actions to include in the 2017 fall Regulatory Agenda. The RRTF identified over 270 reform initiatives, including 101 deregulatory actions that will save the public from unnecessary regulatory burdens. These actions were further evaluated to determine which ones should be made a priority based on the impact of the proposals and the ability to complete the action in FY 2018.
Executive Order 13777 also directed the Department to seek input from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations. To satisfy this requirement, the Department published a Request for Information (RFI) in the
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to eliminate two existing regulations for every new regulation while limiting the total costs associated with an agency's regulations. Specifically, it requires a regulatory two-for-one wherein an agency must propose the elimination of two existing regulations for every new regulation it publishes. Moreover, the costs associated with the new regulation must be completely offset by cost savings brought about by deregulation.
The Department's 2017 fall Regulatory Agenda reflects the Department's commitment to regulatory reform and continues USDA's rigorous implementation of Executive Order 13771. The regulatory agenda identifies 76 rules, of which 44 rules are deregulatory. The remaining 32 rules are not subject to the offsetting or deregulatory requirements of Executive Order 13771. Of the total number of deregulatory actions, USDA has identified 29 final rules that will be completed in FY 2018 and will result in a cost savings. Although we have not estimated the savings for 26 of these actions, they are considered deregulatory actions that USDA will implement to meet the direction that an agency issues twice as many Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions as new Executive Order 13771 regulatory actions.
USDA's 2017 fall Statement of Regulatory Priorities was developed to lower regulatory burdens on the American people by implementing and enforcing regulatory reform. These regulatory priorities will contribute to the mission of the Department, the achievement of the long-term goals the Department aims to accomplish. Highlights of how the Department's regulatory reform efforts contribute to the accomplishment of the Department's strategic goals include the following:
A primary goal of the Department is to ensure that programs are delivered efficiently, effectively, with integrity, and a focus on customer service: To achieve this, USDA is working to leverage the strength and talent of USDA employees with continued dedication to data-driven enterprise solutions through collaborative governance and human capital management strategies centered on accountability and professional development. USDA will reduce regulatory and administrative burdens hindering agencies from reaching the greatest number of stakeholders. Improved customer service and employee engagement within USDA will create a more effective and accessible organization for all stakeholders.
The Department is making it a priority to maximize the ability of American agricultural producers to prosper by feeding and clothing the world: A strong and prosperous agricultural sector is essential to the well-being of the overall U.S. economy. America's farmers and ranchers ensure a safe and reliable food and fuel supply and support job growth and economic development. To maintain a strong agricultural economy, USDA will support farmers in starting and maintaining profitable farm and ranch businesses, as well as offer support to producers affected by natural disasters. The Department will continue to work to create new markets and support a competitive agricultural system by reducing barriers that inhibit agricultural opportunities and economic growth.
Providing all Americans access to a safe, nutritious, and secure food supply is USDA's most important responsibility, and it is one undertaken with great seriousness. USDA has critical roles in preventing foodborne illness and protecting public health, while ensuring Americans have access to food and healthful diet. The Department will continue to prevent contamination and limit foodborne illness by expanding its modernization of food inspection systems, and USDA's research, education, and extension programs will continue to provide information, tools, and technologies about the causes of foodborne illness and its prevention. USDA will continue to develop partnerships that support best practices in implementing effective nutrition assistance programs that ensure eligible populations have access to programs that support their food needs.
Established in 1903, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is one of the oldest Cabinet-level agencies in the Federal Government. Commerce's mission is to create the conditions for economic growth and opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, competitiveness, and environmental stewardship. Commerce has 12 operating units, which are responsible for managing a diverse portfolio of programs and services, ranging from trade promotion and economic development assistance to broadband and the National Weather Service.
Commerce touches Americans daily, in many ways—making possible the daily weather reports and survey research; facilitating technology that all of us use in the workplace and in the home each day; supporting the development, gathering, and transmission of information essential to competitive business; enabling the diversity of companies and goods found in America's and the world's marketplace; and supporting environmental and economic health for the communities in which Americans live.
Commerce has a clear and compelling vision for itself, for its role in the Federal Government, and for its roles supporting the American people, now and in the future. To achieve this vision, Commerce works in partnership with businesses, universities, communities, and workers to:
1. Innovate by creating new ideas through cutting-edge science and technology from advances in nanotechnology, to ocean exploration, to broadband deployment, and by protecting American innovations through the patent and trademark system;
2. Support entrepreneurship and commercialization by enabling community development and strengthening minority businesses and small manufacturers;
3. Maintain U.S. economic competitiveness in the global marketplace by promoting exports, ensuring a level playing field for U.S. businesses, advancing free, fair, and reciprocal trade, and ensuring that technology transfer is consistent with our nation's economic and security interests;
4. Provide effective management and stewardship of our nation's resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic opportunities; and
5. Make informed policy decisions and enable better understanding of the economy by providing accurate economic and demographic data.
Commerce is a vital resource base, tireless advocate, and Cabinet-level voice for job creation. This Regulatory Plan tracks the most important regulations that implement these policy and program priorities, as well as new efforts by the Department to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens on external stakeholders.
The vast majority of the Commerce's programs and activities do not involve regulation. Of Commerce's 12 primary operating units, only the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will be planning actions that are considered the “most important” significant pre-regulatory or regulatory actions for FY 2018. During the next year, NOAA plans to publish five rulemaking actions that are designated as Regulatory Plan actions. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) may also publish rulemaking actions designated as Regulatory Plan actions. Further information on these actions is provided below.
Commerce has a long-standing policy to prohibit the issuance of any regulation that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, gender, or any other suspect category and requires that all regulations be written so as to be understandable to those affected by them. The Secretary also requires that Commerce afford the public the maximum possible opportunity to participate in Departmental rulemakings, even where public participation is not required by law.
Commerce has implemented Executive Order 13771 working through its Regulatory Reform Task Force established under Executive Order 13777 to identify and prioritize deregulatory actions that each bureau within the Department can take to reduce and remove regulatory burdens on stakeholders.
In Fiscal Year 2018, Commerce expects to publish approximately 2 regulatory actions and over 30 deregulatory actions, far exceeding the requirement under Executive Order 13771 to publish two deregulatory actions for every one regulatory action. Additionally, Commerce's Regulatory Reform Task Force will continue working to execute directives under Executive Orders 13783 and 13807 to streamline regulatory process and permitting reviews for new energy and infrastructure projects. To that end, Commerce may have other deregulatory actions to implement that do not currently appear in the agenda.
Regulatory reform and agency streamlining are key elements to Commerce's agenda for the next year. Senior policy analysis, performance measurements, and employee evaluations will incorporate these priorities as the Department continues to regulate private industry through multiple bureaus within the agency.
NOAA establishes and administers Federal policy for the conservation and management of the Nation's oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric resources. It provides a variety of essential environmental and climate services vital to public safety and to the Nation's economy, such as weather forecasts, drought forecasts, and storm warnings. It is a source of objective information on the state of the environment. NOAA plays the lead role in achieving Commerce's goal of promoting stewardship by providing assessments of the global environment.
Recognizing that economic growth must go hand-in-hand with environmental stewardship, Commerce, through NOAA, conducts programs designed to provide a better understanding of the connections between environmental health, economics, and national security.
Three of NOAA's major components, the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS), the National Ocean Service (NOS), and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), exercise regulatory authority.
NMFS oversees the management and conservation of the Nation's marine fisheries, protects threatened and endangered marine and anadromous species and marine mammals, and promotes economic development of the U.S. fishing industry. NOS assists the coastal States in their management of land and ocean resources in their coastal zones, including estuarine research reserves; manages the national marine sanctuaries; monitors marine pollution; and directs the national program for deep-seabed minerals and ocean thermal energy. NESDIS administers the civilian weather satellite program and licenses private organizations to operate commercial land-remote sensing satellite systems.
Commerce, through NOAA, has a unique role in promoting stewardship of the global environment through effective management of the Nation's marine and coastal resources and in monitoring and predicting changes in the Earth's environment, thus linking trade, development, and technology with environmental issues. NOAA has the primary Federal responsibility for providing sound scientific observations, assessments, and forecasts of environmental phenomena on which resource management, adaptation, and other societal decisions can be made.
In the environmental stewardship area, NOAA's goals include: Rebuilding and maintaining strong U.S. fisheries by using market-based tools and ecosystem approaches to management; conserving, protecting, and recovering threatened and endangered marine and anadromous species and marine mammals while still allowing for economic and recreational opportunities; promoting healthy coastal ecosystems by ensuring that economic development is managed in ways that maintain biodiversity and long-term productivity for sustained use; and modernizing navigation and positioning services. In the environmental assessment and prediction area, goals include: Understanding the impacts of a changing climate and communicating that understanding to government and private sector stakeholders enabling them to adapt; continually improving the National Weather Service; implementing reliable seasonal and interannual climate forecasts to guide economic planning; providing science-based policy advice on options to deal with very long-term (decadal to centennial) changes in the environment; and advancing and improving short-term warning and forecast services for the entire environment.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) rulemakings concern the conservation and management of fishery resources in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (generally 3-200 nautical miles). Among the several hundred rulemakings that NOAA plans to issue in FY 2018, a number of the regulatory and deregulatory actions will be significant. The exact number of such rulemakings is unknown, since they are usually initiated by the actions of eight regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) that are responsible for preparing fishery management plans (FMPs) and FMP amendments, and for drafting implementing regulations for each managed fishery. NOAA issues regulations to implement FMPs and FMP amendments. Once a rulemaking is triggered by an FMC, the Magnuson-Stevens Act places stringent deadlines upon NOAA by which it must exercise its rulemaking responsibilities. FMPs and FMP amendments for Atlantic highly migratory species, such as bluefin tuna, swordfish, and sharks, are developed directly by NOAA, not by FMCs.
FMPs address a variety of issues including maximizing fishing opportunities on healthy stocks, rebuilding overfished stocks, and addressing gear conflicts. One of the problems that FMPs may address is preventing overcapitalization (preventing excess fishing capacity) of fisheries. This may be resolved by market-based systems such as catch shares, which permit shareholders to harvest a quantity of fish and which can be traded on the open market. Harvest limits based on the best available scientific information, whether as a total fishing limit for a species in a fishery or as a share assigned to each vessel participant, enable stressed stocks to rebuild. Other measures include staggering fishing seasons or limiting gear types to avoid gear conflicts on the fishing grounds and establishing seasonal and area closures to protect fishery stocks.
The FMCs provide a forum for public debate and, using the best scientific information available, make the judgments needed to determine optimum yield on a fishery-by-fishery basis. Optional management measures are examined and selected in accordance with the national standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This process, including the selection of the preferred management measures, constitutes the development, in simplified form, of an FMP. The FMP, together with draft implementing regulations and supporting documentation, is submitted to NMFS for review against the national standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in other provisions of the Act, and other applicable laws. The same process applies to amending an existing approved FMP.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) provides the authority for the conservation and management of marine mammals under U.S. jurisdiction. It expressly prohibits, with certain exceptions, the take of marine mammals. The MMPA allows, upon request, the incidental take of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) provides for the conservation of species that are determined to be “endangered” or “threatened,” and the conservation of the ecosystems on which these species depend. The ESA authorizes both NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to jointly administer the provisions of the ESA. NMFS manages marine and “anadromous” species, and FWS manages land and freshwater species. Together, NMFS and FWS work to protect critically imperiled species from extinction. Of the approximately 1,300 listed species found in part or entirely in the United States and its waters, NMFS has jurisdiction over approximately 60 species. NMFS' rulemaking actions are focused on determining whether any species under its responsibility is an endangered or threatened species and whether those species must be added to the list of protected species. NMFS is also responsible for designating, reviewing, and revising critical habitat for any listed species. In addition, under the ESA, Federal agencies consult with NMFS on any proposed action authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency that may affect listed species or designated critical habitat, or that may affect proposed species or critical habitat. These interagency consultations are designed to assist Federal agencies in fulfilling their duty to ensure Federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, while still allowing Federal agencies to fulfill their respective missions (
While most of the rulemakings undertaken by NOAA do not rise to the level necessary to be included in Commerce's regulatory plan, NMFS is undertaking four actions that rise to the level of “most important” of Commerce's significant regulatory actions and thus are included in this year's regulatory plan. A description of the four regulatory plan actions is provided below.
Additionally, NMFS is undertaking a series of rulemakings that are considered deregulatory, as defined by Executive Order 13771. Such actions directly benefit the regulated community by increasing access, providing more economic opportunity, reducing costs, and/or increasing flexibility. A specific example of such an action is the Commerce Trusted Trader Program, as described below. Other examples include actions implementing FMPs that alleviate or reduce previous requirements.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) advances U.S. national security,
BIS administers four sets of regulations. The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) regulate exports and reexports to protect national security, foreign policy, and short supply interests. The EAR also regulates U.S. persons' participation in certain boycotts administered by foreign governments. The National Security Industrial Base Regulations provide for prioritization of certain contracts and allocations of resources to promote the national defense, require reporting of foreign Government-imposed offsets in defense sales, provide for surveys to assess the capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense and address the effect of imports on the defense industrial base. The Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations implement declaration, reporting, and on-site inspection requirements in the private sector necessary to meet United States treaty obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. The Additional Protocol Regulations implement similar requirements with respect to an agreement between the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
BIS also has an enforcement component with nine offices covering the United States. BIS export control officers are also stationed at several U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. BIS works with other U.S. Government agencies to promote coordinated U.S. Government efforts in export controls and other programs. BIS participates in U.S. Government efforts to strengthen multilateral export control regimes and to promote effective export controls through cooperation with other Governments
BIS maintains the EAR, including the Commerce Control List (CCL). The CCL describes commodities, software, and technology that are subject to licensing requirements for specific reasons for control. The Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), maintains the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), including the United States Munitions List (USML), which describes defense articles subject to State's licensing jurisdiction.
In Fiscal Year 2018, BIS plans to publish a proposed rule describing how articles the President has determined no longer warrant control under USML Category I (Firearms, Close Assault Weapons and Combat Shotguns), Category II (Guns and Armament), and Category III (Ammunition/Ordnance) would be controlled on the CCL and by the EAR. This proposed rule will be published in conjunction with a DDTC proposed rule that would amend the list of articles controlled by those USML Categories to describe more precisely items warranting continued control on that list.
The changes that will be described in these proposed rules are based on a review of those categories by the Department of Defense, which worked with the Departments of State and Commerce in preparing the amendments. The review was focused on identifying the types of articles that are now controlled on the USML that are either (i) inherently military and otherwise warrant control on the USML or (ii) if of a type common to non-military firearms applications, possess parameters or characteristics that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage to the United States, and are almost exclusively available from the United States. If an article satisfies one or both of those criteria, the article will remain on the USML. If an article does not satisfy either criterion, it will be identified in the new Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) included in the BIS proposed rule. Thus, the scope of the items that will be described in the proposed rule is essentially commercial items widely available in retail outlets and less sensitive military items.
Although the firearms and other items described in the proposed rule are widely used for sporting applications, BIS will not propose to “de-control” these items. BIS would require licenses to export or reexport to any country a firearm or other weapon that would be added to the CCL by the proposed rule. Rather than decontrolling firearms and other items, in publishing the proposed rule, BIS, working with the Departments of Defense and State, is trying to reduce the procedural burdens and costs of export compliance on the U.S. firearms industry while allowing the U.S. Government to control firearms appropriately and to make better use of its export control resources.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) mission is to foster innovation, competitiveness and economic growth, domestically and abroad by delivering high quality and timely examination of patent and trademark applications, guiding domestic and international intellectual property policy, and delivering intellectual property information and education worldwide.
USPTO is the Federal agency for granting U.S. patents and registering trademarks. In doing this, the USPTO fulfills the mandate of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the Constitution that the legislative branch “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” The USPTO registers trademarks based on the commerce clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). Under this system of protection, American industry has flourished. New products have been invented, new uses for old ones discovered, and employment opportunities created for millions of Americans. The strength and vitality of the U.S. economy depends directly on effective mechanisms that protect new ideas and investments in innovation and creativity. The continued demand for patents and trademarks underscores the ingenuity of American inventors and entrepreneurs. The USPTO is at the cutting edge of the nation's technological progress and achievement.
The USPTO advises the President of the United States, the Secretary of Commerce, and U.S. government agencies on intellectual property (IP) policy, protection, and enforcement; and promotes the stronger and more effective IP protection around the world. The USPTO furthers effective IP protection for U.S. innovators and entrepreneurs worldwide by working with other agencies to secure strong IP provisions in free trade and other international agreements. It also provides training, education, and capacity building programs designed to foster respect for IP and encourage the development of strong IP enforcement regimes by U.S. trading partners. USPTO administers regulations located at title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations concerning its patent and trademark services, and the other functions it performs.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) provides assistance to economically distressed communities in order to stimulate commercial growth, improve infrastructure, and generate employment opportunities. Over the next year, EDA will continue to implement grants and assistance programs that achieve the agency's mission, in line with statutory authority, and also support the President's agenda. Accordingly, EDA's regulatory activities target new efforts to streamline and simplify agency process.
EDA published a final rule that focused on improving and modernizing EDA's oversight of its Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Program under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended (PWEDA). The RLF Program provides grants to eligible recipients, such as local governments and non-profit organizations, to operate lending programs that offer low-interest loans and flexible repayment terms, primarily to small businesses in distressed communities that are unable to obtain traditional bank financing. The final rule implemented a risk-based oversight approach that has improved EDA oversight of the RLF Program, consistent with recommendations from the Department's Office of Inspector General. In particular, EDA's shift to a modern risk analysis system concentrates EDA's limited oversight resources on those RLFs at greatest risk and simultaneously reduced compliance burdens on successful RLFs.
EDA's transition to risk-based monitoring of the RLF Program is expected to result in more efficient and effective oversight of the RLF Program through reduced reporting, compliance, and monitoring costs of approximately $960,000 each year. For this reason, the final rule was a “deregulatory action” under Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” These regulatory changes were necessary regardless of whether EDA continues to operate or if EDA were to be eliminated by Congress as requested in the President's Fiscal Year 2018 Budget because the Department is under an obligation to administer and monitor RLF grants in perpetuity under current statutory authorities. The regulatory changes made by the Final Rule would enable EDA or the Department to more efficiently manage the residual RLF portfolio going forward.
The final rule also effectuated important, but less comprehensive, updates to other parts of EDA's regulations implementing PWEDA that enable EDA or the Department to more effectively oversee the non-RLF grant portfolio, even in the event of EDA's elimination by Congress. These non-RLF PWEDA regulations ensure that grantees continue to use projects for the purpose originally funded and to eventually execute releases of the Federal interest in the property at the expiration of the useful life, often 20 years after the date of the grant award.
The mission of the Department of Defense (DoD) is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country.
The Department is America's oldest and largest government agency. Today, DoD is not only in charge of the military, but it also employs a civilian force of thousands. With over 1.3 million men and women on active duty and 742,000 civilian personnel, the Department is the nation's largest employer. Another 826 thousand serve in the National Guard and Reserve forces and more than 2 million military retirees and their family members receive benefits. Our military service members and civilians operate in every time zone and in every climate with more than 450,000 employees overseas, both afloat and ashore.
To accomplish this mission, DoD's physical plant consists of more than several hundred thousand individual buildings and structures located at more than 5,000 different locations or sites. These sites range from the very small in size such as unoccupied sites supporting a single navigational aid that sits on less than one-half acre, to the Army's vast White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico with over 3.6 million acres, or the Navy's large complex of installations at Norfolk, Virginia with more than 78,000 employees.
DoD trains and equips the armed forces through our three military departments: The Army, Navy and Air Force. The Marine Corps, mainly an amphibious force, is part of the Department of the Navy. The primary job of the military departments is to train and equip their personnel to perform warfighting, peacekeeping and humanitarian/disaster assistance tasks.
• The Army defends the land mass of the United States, its territories, commonwealths, and possessions; it operates in more than 50 countries.
• The Navy maintains, trains, and equips combat-ready maritime forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas.
• The Air Force provides a rapid, flexible, and when necessary, air and space capability that routinely participates in peacekeeping, humanitarian, and aeromedical evacuation missions.
• The U.S. Marine Corps maintains ready expeditionary forces, sea-based and integrated air-ground units for contingency and combat operations, and
• National Guard and Reserve forces are taking on new and more important roles, at home and abroad, as we transform our national military strategy.
An all-service or “joint” service office supports the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his capacity as the principal military advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense. The unified commanders are the direct link from the military forces to the President and the Secretary of Defense.
The Secretary of Defense exercises his authority over how the military is trained and equipped through the Service secretaries; but uses a totally different method to exercise his authority to deploy troops and exercise military power. This latter authority is directed, with the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the nine unified commands.
The Department of Defense contributes to homeland security through its military missions overseas, homeland defense, and support to civil authorities. The Department is also responsible for homeland defense which is the protection of US sovereignty, territory, domestic population, and critical defense infrastructure against external threats and aggression, or other threats as directed by the President.
Homeland Defense includes missions such as domestic air defense, maritime intercept operations, and land-based defense of critical infrastructure and assets Defense support of civil authorities, often referred to as civil support, can include Federal military forces, the Department's career civilian and contractor personnel, and DoD agency and component assets, for domestic emergencies and for designated law enforcement and other activities. The Department of Defense provides defense support of civil authorities when directed to do so by the President or Secretary of Defense.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense helps the Secretary plan, advise, and carry out the nation's security policies as directed by both the Secretary of Defense and the President. The rulemakings discussed in this regulatory statement comes out of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (OUSD(AT&L)) and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)). These Offices are described below:
• OUSD(AT&L)—procurement of goods and services; research and development; developmental testing; contract administration; logistics, maintenance, and sustainment support; and maintenance of the defense industrial base of the United States.
• OUSD(P&R)—readiness; National Guard and Reserve component affairs; health affairs; training; and personnel requirements and management, including equal opportunity, morale, welfare, recreation, and quality of life matters.
This Regulatory Plan tracks the most important regulations implementing the Department's policy and program priorities, as well as new efforts by the Department to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens on external stakeholders.
The Department's rulemaking program strives to be responsive, efficient, and transparent. As noted in Executive Order 13609, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation” (May 1, 2012), international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting public health, welfare, safety, and our environment as well as economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.
DoD, along with the Departments of State and Commerce, engages with other countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement, Nuclear Suppliers Group, Australia Group, and Missile Technology Control Regime through which the international community develops a common list of items that should be subject to export controls. DoD has been a key participant in the Administration's Export Control Reform effort that resulted in a complete overhaul of the U.S. Munitions List and fundamental changes to the Commerce Control List. New controls have facilitated transfers of goods and technologies to allies and partners while helping prevent transfers to countries of national security and proliferation concern. DOD will continue to assess new and emerging technologies to ensure items that provide critical military and intelligence capabilities are properly controlled on international export control regime lists.
Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (February 24, 2017), required DoD to appoint a Regulatory Reform Officer to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies and establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force) to review and evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law.
Those reform initiatives and policies include Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (January 30, 2017), section 6 of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (January 18, 2011), and Executive Order 12866. DoD is implementing a three phase effort to review, implement, and sustain its regulations:
• Phase I: Utilizing the DoD Task Force, assess all 716 existing, codified DoD regulations to include 350 solicitation provisions and contract clauses. The Task Force will present recommendations for the repeal, replacement, or modification to the Secretary of Defense on a quarterly basis through the end of December 2018.
• Phase II: Upon Secretary of Defense approval, DoD will begin implementing the elimination of regulations. Implementation requires drafting, internal coordination, review by the Office of Management and Budget, and providing for notice and comment, as required by law.
• Phase III: DoD will incorporate into its policies a requirement for component's to sustain review of both new regulatory actions and existing regulations.
As a result of the ongoing review, evaluation, and recommendations of its Task Force, DoD has identified priority regulatory and deregulatory actions that reduce costs to the public by eliminating unnecessary, ineffective, and duplicative regulations.
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics/Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Personnel and Readiness/Health Affairs, and the Army Corps of Engineers will be planning actions that are considered the “most important” significant pre-regulatory or regulatory actions for FY 2018. During the next year, these DoD Components plan to publish eight rulemaking actions that are designated as significant actions. Further information on these actions is provided below.
DoD has implemented Executive Order 13771 through its Regulatory Reform Task Force established under Executive Order 13777 to identify and prioritize deregulatory actions that each component or Service can take to reduce and remove regulatory burdens on stakeholders.
In Fiscal Year 2018, DoD expects to publish more deregulatory actions than regulatory actions. Exact figures are not yet available as the regulations reported in this edition of the Unified Agenda are still under evaluation for classification
DPAP is responsible for all contracting and procurement policy matters in the Department and uses the Defense Acquisition Regulation System (DARS) to develop and maintain acquisition rules and to facilitate the acquisition workforce as they acquire the goods and services. Significant rules are highlighted below.
Rulemakings that are expected to have high net benefits well in excess of costs.
This rule will amend the DFARS to expand the use of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.245-1, Government Property, in certain purchase orders for repair. This FAR clause is used in contracts to require contractors comply with basic property receipt and record keeping requirements. This ensures the Government is able to track, report, and manage Government-furnished property. “Government-furnished property” is property in the possession of, or directly acquired by, the Government and subsequently furnished to the contractor for performance of a contract. It includes, but is not limited to, spares and property furnished for repair, maintenance, overhaul, or modification. Currently, the FAR clause is not required for use in purchase orders for repair, when the unit acquisition cost of the Government-furnished property to be repaired is less than the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000). However, the unit cost of the item to be repaired alone is not an indicator of the criticality or sensitivity of the item. For example, firearms, body armor, night vision equipment, computers, or cryptological devices may individually be valued at less than $150,000, but accountability of these items is of vital importance to the Department. Not using the FAR clause in purchase orders for repair, significantly increases the risk of misuse or loss of Government-furnished property items. In order to strengthen the management and accountability of Government-furnished property provided to contractors, this rule will amend the DFARS to require use of the FAR clause 52.245-1 in all DoD purchase orders for repair, regardless of the unit acquisition cost of the individual items to be repaired.
Rulemakings that promote Open Government and use disclosure as a regulatory tool.
This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to implement section 888 of the NDAA for FY 2017. Section 888 requires that competition not be limited through the use of specifying brand name, brand name or equivalent descriptions, or proprietary specifications and standards, unless a justification for such specifications is provided and approved in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(f). Currently, if the Government intends to procure specific “brand name” products, the contracting officer must prepare a brand name justification and obtain the appropriate approvals based on the estimated dollar value of the contracts (see FAR 6.302-1(c) and 6.304). However, a justification is not required to use “brand name or equal” descriptions in a solicitation. Rather, contracting officers are required to include in their solicitation a description of the salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics of the brand name item that an “equal” item must meet. The contracting officer will also include FAR provision 52.211-6, Brand Name or Equal, in solicitations, which informs potential offerors that offers of “equal” products must meet the salient characteristic specified in this solicitation. To implement section 888, this rule proposes to amend the DFARS to require contracting officers to take the additional step of preparing and obtaining an approval of a justification for use of “brand name or equal” descriptions, prior to including those descriptions in a solicitation. Contracting officers will include the justification with the posting of the solicitation, which will promote transparency with industry and presents an opportunity to increase competition.
This rule amends Appendix I of the DFARS I to implement changes to the Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program provided by section 861 of the NDAA for FY 2016. This Program was originally established under section 831 of the NDAA for FY 1991. Under this program, eligible companies approved as “mentor firms” will enter into agreements with eligible “protégé firms.” The mentor firms provide developmental assistance to protégé firms to perform as subcontractors or suppliers on Government contracts. In return, the mentor firms may receive credit against applicable subcontracting goals under contracts with DoD or other Federal agencies. This rule amends Appendix I of the DFARS to implement the amendments to the Program provided by section 861. Specifically, the rule will require mentor firms to report additional information on the assistance they have provided to their protégé firms. DoD's Office of Small Business Programs will use this information to support decisions regarding whether to continue particular mentor-protégé agreements. In addition, this rule adds new eligibility criteria for both mentor and protégé firms and will limit the period of time a protégé firm can participate in the Program, as well as the number of mentor-protégé agreements to which a protégé can be a party. Finally, this rule also extends the Program for three years.
Rulemakings that streamline regulations and reduce unjustified burdens.
This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to clarify DoD's policy for Earned Value Management System (EVMS) application on DoD contracts. “Earned value management system” means a project management tool that effectively integrates the project scope of work with cost, schedule, and performance elements for optimum project planning and control. Implemented properly, an EVMS will measure progress against a baseline and provide an early warning of cost overruns and schedule delays for major acquisitions. Currently, an EVMS is required for major acquisitions for development, in accordance with OMB Circular A-11 (see FAR 34.201(a)). However, individual agencies may require an EVMS on other acquisitions, as specified in their agency procedures. DoD applies the EVMS requirement to cost or incentive contracts and subcontracts valued at $20 million or more, and requires the EVMS comply with the guidelines in the American National Standards Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance Standard 748, Earned Value Management Systems (ANSI/EIA-748). In addition, for DoD cost or incentive contracts and subcontracts valued at $50 million or more, the EVMS must be determined by the cognizant Federal agency to be compliant with ANSI/EIA-748. This
This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to raise the threshold for determining when a contractor purchasing system review (CPSR) is required. Per FAR subpart 44.3, the Government will conduct a CPRS in order to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness with which a prime contractor spends Government funds and complies with Government policy when subcontracting. During a CPSR, the Government will pay special attention to certain aspects of a prime contractor's subcontracting program. For example, the Government will review the degree of price competition obtained by a prime contractor on subcontracts, whether the prime contractor is complying with Government Cost Accounting Standards, and whether the appropriate contract types are being used on subcontracts (see FAR 44.303). Currently, if a contractor's sales to the Government are expected to exceed $25 million during the next 12 months, then the administrative contracting officer (ACO) will determine whether there is a need for a CPSR (see FAR 44.302(a)). This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to raise the ACO determination dollar threshold to $50 million for DoD contracts. It is expected that this rule may reduce the number of CPSRs conducted by DoD and, in turn, alleviate the burden on contractors associated with participating in the CPSR.
Rules modifying, streamlining, expanding, or repealing making DOD's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.
This final rule will amend the DFARS to remove a requirement for major contractors to have a technical interchange with the Government prior to generating independent research and development (IR&D) costs. DoD published a final rule, effective November 4, 2016, that revised DFARS 231.205-18(c)(iii)(C)(4) to require major contractors to engage in and document a technical interchange with a DoD employee, prior to generating IR&D costs for IR&D projects initiated in fiscal year 2017 and later, in order for those costs to be allowable. This requirement causes the contractor to expend time preparing for a discussion, contacting appropriate Government personnel, discussing the IR&D project, and documenting the conversation. Since contractors commonly pool all of their IR&D project costs to develop a single billing rate, this requirement would necessitate contractors having to discuss all of the IR&D projects contained in their billing rate. While some contractors may have a single project, many have close to 100 or more, which could be significantly burdensome. This regulation is being repealed pursuant to action taken by the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force in accordance with E.O. 13777. Repealing the technical interchange prerequisite from the DFARS, will not only reduce the burden imposed on major contractors, but also free these contractors to pursue IR&D projects without including the Government in those preliminary decisions.
The mission of DoD's health program is to enhance the Department of Defense and our nation's security by providing health support for the full range of military operations and sustaining the health of all those entrusted to our care by creating a world-class health care system that supports the military mission by fostering, protecting, sustaining and restoring health.
TRICARE is the health care program for uniformed service members including active duty and retired members of the: U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Coast Guard, the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service and the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association and their families around the world. It serves 9.5 million individuals worldwide. It continues to offer an increasingly integrated and comprehensive health care plan, refining and enhancing both benefits and programs in a manner consistent with the law, industry standard of care, and best practices, to meet the changing needs of its beneficiaries. The program's goal is to increase access to health care services, improve health care quality, and control health care costs.
For this component, DoD is highlighting the following rule.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), is a major Army command made up of some 37,000 civilian and military personnel, making it one of the world's largest public engineering, design, and construction management agencies. Although generally associated with dams, canals and flood protection in the United States, USACE is involved in a wide range of public works throughout the world. The Corps of Engineers provides outdoor recreation opportunities to the public, and provides 24% of U.S. hydropower capacity.
The corps' mission is to “Deliver vital public and military engineering services; partnering in peace and war to strengthen our Nation's security, energize the economy and reduce risks from disasters.” The most visible missions include:
• Planning, designing, building, and operating locks and dams. Other civil engineering projects include flood
• Design and construction of flood protection systems through various federal mandates.
• Design and construction management of military facilities for the Army, Air Force, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve and other Defense and Federal agencies.
• Environmental regulation and ecosystem restoration.
In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army (“the agencies”) published the “Clean Water Rule: Definition of `Waters of the United States' ” (80 FR 37054, June 29, 2015). On October 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed the 2015 rule nationwide pending further action of the court. On February 28, 2017, the President signed the “Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the `Waters of the United States' Rule” which instructed the agencies to review the 2015 rule and rescind or replace it as appropriate and consistent with law. On July 27, 2017, the agencies published a
The Executive Order further directs that EPA and the Army “shall consider interpreting the term ‘navigable waters’ “in a manner consistent with Supreme Court Justice Scalia's opinion” in Rapanos indicating that Clean Water Act jurisdiction includes relatively permanent waters and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent waters. Later this fiscal year, after considering the comments received in response to the STEP 1 FRN, the agencies plan to propose a new definition to replace the definition and regulatory approach codified in the 2015 CWR. Over the past few months the agencies have been having meetings and holding webinars with Tribes, States, and organizations that request them to explain the 2-STEP process, what the Scalia Opinion means, and some of the options for developing a new definition of Waters of the United States. These briefing and listening sessions will continue through November 2017. Until the new rule is finalized, the agencies will continue to implement the regulatory definition in place prior to the 2015 CWR consistent with the SWANCC and Rapanos Guidance, while the 6th Circuit Court stay of the 2015 CWR is still in effect or the EPA and Army complete rulemaking to amend the effective date of the 2015 CWR.
• Clarifies that EVMS requirements are applicable to all DoD contracts, task orders, and delivery orders, that are cost reimbursement or incentive fee; have a value of $20 million or more (inclusive of all options); and have a period of performance of 18 months or longer;
• Clarifies that, with the exception of a contractor EVMS under the cognizance of the Naval Sea Systems Command, where system approval is not delegated to the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), DCMA is responsible for approving a contractor's EVMS;
• Removes the reference to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) guidelines and states that EVMS must comply with guidelines in Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) Standard 748 (EIA-748);
• Raises the threshold for a formal earned value management system compliance determination by the Defense Contract Management Agency from $50 million to $100 million; and
• Clarifies that EVMS requirements apply unless the requirements package includes a determination of earned value management nonapplicability or a waiver signed by the component acquisition executive.
This rule will not increase costs for contractors. DoD expects that this rule will decreases costs for contractors by increasing the dollar threshold for formal EVMS compliance determinations from $50 million to $100 million, and providing for earned value management non-applicability determinations and waivers. DoD estimates that this rule will reduce the number of contractor reviews by nearly 20 percent with very little risk to the Government, since over 97 percent of the contract dollars will still be covered by the increased threshold.
• Requires mentor firms to report assistance provided to or obtained for
• Requires mentor firms and protégé firms to meet new eligibility criteria.
• Limits the number of mentor-protégé agreements to which a protégé firm may be a party to one at a time.
• Limits the period of time during which a protégé firm may participate in mentor-protégé agreements under the Program to five years.
• Requires mentor-protégé agreements to address the benefits of the agreement to DoD and goals for additional awards for which the protégé firm can compete outside the Program.
• Removes business development assistance using mentor firm personnel and cash in exchange for an ownership interest in the protégé firm from the types of assistance that a mentor firm may provide to a protégé firm.
• Prohibits reimbursement of any fee assessed by the mentor firm for certain services provided to the protégé firm while participating in a joint venture with the protégé firm.
One respondent submitted a public comment on the proposed rule. This rule will slightly increase the costs for contractors participating in the program by introducing new reporting requirements, as required by the statute; however, these costs are offset by benefits offered by the Program. For example, the Program provides incentives to both mentor and protégé firms. Mentor firms may receive credit toward the goals in their small business subcontracting plan for the funds they spend on developmental assistance for their protégé firms. The Program offers protégé firms the opportunity to learn about contracting with DoD and to receive subcontracts from an established, successful DoD contractor.
The anticipated costs are offset by benefits offered by the Program. For mentor firms, these benefits include credit toward the goals in their small business subcontracting plans for the developmental assistance they provide to their protégé firms. Participation in the Program as a mentor is one way for mentors to demonstrate a good-faith effort to comply with their subcontracting plans. For protégé firms, the benefits of the Program include an opportunity to gain assistance from a successful mentor that will enable them to grow and develop as a business. Such assistance will help them obtain subcontracts with DoD contractors and eventually contracts with DoD.
One respondent submitted comments on the proposed rule. This rule will increase costs for contractors, including small entities, who receive purchase orders for repair of Government property, because these contractors will be required to comply with the reporting requirements associated with Government property clause. However, the rule also provides the contractors with the protections of the Government Property clause (where the Government self-insures the property provided to the contractor), and provides DoD better accountability of its property.
The rule also enables compliance with DoD Instruction 4161.02 entitled Accountability and Management of Government Contract Property, which requires DoD components to use electronic transactions when transferring GFP to a contractor and upon the return of the property to DoD. Use of FAR clause 52.245-1, Government Property, in conjunction with associated DFARS clauses, creates an electronic end-to-end process for GFP management.
Benefits of this rule accrue to both contractors and the Government resulting from improved accountability of GFP, which should reduce losses and mitigate potential property ownership issues. This will serve to minimize contract disputes, claims, and litigation; thereby reducing administrative costs for both contractors and the Government. Accountability of GFP facilitates proper disposition and adjudication of all property during contract closeout and should result in prompt contract payment.
In implementing section 701 and partially implementing several other sections of NDAA-17, this interim final rule advances all four components of the Military Health System's quadruple aim of stronger readiness, better care, healthier people, and smarter spending. The aim of stronger readiness is served by reinforcing the vital role of the TRICARE Prime health plan to refer patients, particularly those needing specialty care, to military medical treatment facilities in order to ensure that military health care providers maintain clinical currency and proficiency in their professional fields. The objective of better care is enhanced by a number of improvements in beneficiary access to health care services, including geographical coverage for the TRICARE Select provider network, reduced administrative hurdles for TRICARE Prime enrollees to obtain urgent care services and specialty care referrals, and promotion of high-value services and medications and telehealth services. The goal of healthier people is advanced by expanding TRICARE coverage of preventive care services and prevention and treatment of obesity. And the aim of smarter spending is furthered by sharpening cost-benefit assessments for TRICARE plan specifications that remain under the DoD's discretion.
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) supports States, local communities, institutions of higher education, and families in improving education and other services nationwide in order to ensure that all Americans, including those with disabilities, receive a high-quality education and are prepared for high-quality employment. We provide leadership and financial assistance pertaining to education and related services at all levels to a wide range of stakeholders and individuals, including State educational and other agencies, local school districts, providers of early learning programs, elementary and secondary schools, institutions of higher education, career and technical schools, nonprofit organizations, postsecondary students, members of the public, families, and many others. These efforts are helping to ensure that all children and students from pre-kindergarten through grade 12 will be ready for, and succeed in, postsecondary education or employment, and that students attending postsecondary institutions are prepared for a profession or career.
We also vigorously monitor and enforce the implementation of Federal civil rights laws in educational programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance, and support innovative programs, research and evaluation activities, technical assistance, and the dissemination of data, research, and evaluation findings to improve the quality of education.
Overall, the laws, regulations, and programs that the Department administers will affect nearly every American during his or her life. Indeed, in the 2017-18 school year, about 56 million students will attend an estimated 133,000 elementary and secondary schools in approximately 13,600 districts, and about 20 million students will enroll in degree-granting postsecondary schools. All of these students may benefit from some degree of financial assistance or support from the Department.
In developing and implementing regulations, guidance, technical assistance, evaluations, data gathering and reporting, and monitoring related to our programs, we are committed to working closely with affected persons and groups. We know that improving education starts with allowing greater decision-making authority at the State and local levels while also recognizing that the ultimate form of local control occurs when parents and students are empowered to choose their own educational paths forward. Our core mission includes this empowerment of local education, serving the most vulnerable, and facilitating equal access for all, to ensure all students receive a high-quality education, and complete it with a well-considered and attainable path to a sustainable career.
Toward these ends, we work with a broad range of interested parties and the general public, including families, students, and educators; State, local, and tribal governments; other Federal agencies; and neighborhood groups, community-based early learning programs, elementary and secondary schools, colleges, rehabilitation service providers, adult education providers, professional associations, advocacy organizations, businesses, and labor organizations.
If we determine that it is necessary to develop regulations, we seek public participation at the key stages in the rulemaking process. We invite the public to submit comments on all proposed regulations through the internet or by regular mail. We also continue to seek greater public participation in our rulemaking activities through the use of transparent and interactive rulemaking procedures and new technologies.
To facilitate the public's involvement, we participate in the Federal Docketing Management System (FDMS), an electronic single Government-wide access point (
We are committed to reducing burden with regard to regulations, guidance, and information collections, reducing the burden on information providers involved in our programs, and making information easily accessible to the public. To that end and consistent with Executive Order 13777 (“Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda”), we are in the process of reviewing all of our regulations and guidance to modify and rescind items that: (1) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation; (2) are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; (3) impose costs that exceed benefits; (4) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies; (5) are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or (6) derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
The following actions are the significant new rulemaking actions the Department is planning for the coming year. Because we are just now beginning the rulemaking process for these regulations, we have limited information about the potential costs and benefits and therefore whether these would be considered regulatory or deregulatory actions under Executive Order 13771.
The Secretary is planning two new rulemakings in the area of higher education and Federal Student Aid under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). In 2014, we completed a rulemaking to establish regulations governing certain postsecondary educational programs that prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation, and in 2016, we completed a rulemaking to establish regulations governing, among other issues, borrower defenses to repayment of student loans. In the two new rulemakings, described below, we are planning to revisit these regulations with the goals of alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens and ensuring appropriate protections for students, institutions, the taxpayers, and the Federal government. Through the use of the negotiated rulemaking process, we will receive input from a diverse range of interests and affected parties and will have the opportunity to reach consensus on a set of regulations that best meets those parties' needs and our overall goals.
More specifically, the Secretary plans to establish new regulations governing
The Secretary is also commencing rulemaking to amend the gainful employment regulations, including those provisions relating to institutional eligibility, reporting, and disclosures.
The Secretary is planning a new rulemaking to address significant issues under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended. In this action, we seek to clarify schools' obligations in redressing sex discrimination, including complaints of sexual misconduct, and the procedures by which they must do so.
The Department anticipates issuing a number of deregulatory actions in the upcoming fiscal year. We have thus far been focusing our deregulatory efforts on eliminating outdated regulations. In many instances, our deregulatory actions are being taken because legislation has superseded our regulations. For example, we are planning to rescind a number of sections from our Office of Elementary and Secondary Education regulations to clarify which regulations were superseded by the recently enacted Every Student Succeeds Act. These deregulatory actions, such as rescinding the Adequate Yearly Progress regulations at 34 CFR 200.13-22, will clarify for our stakeholders and the general public which of our regulations are still in effect, and which have been rescinded. Similarly, we are planning to rescind a number of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services regulations issued by the Department's former National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). Congress transferred NIDRR to the Department of Health and Human Services, and this deregulatory action will rescind regulations that the Department no longer administers, thereby avoiding confusion. The unified agenda identifies other deregulatory actions that provide cost savings and clarity.
As stated previously, the Department is undertaking a comprehensive regulatory reform effort pursuant to Executive Order 13777, focusing on rescinding and modifying all outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective regulations, guidance, and information collections. Section 3(e) of the Executive Order requires the Department, as part of this effort, to “seek input and other assistance, as permitted by law, from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations, including State, local, and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, and trade associations” on regulations that meet some or all of the criteria above.
Consistent with section 3(e), on June 22, 2017, the Department published a
Over the next year, we may need to issue other regulations because of new legislation or programmatic changes. In doing so, we will follow the Principles for Regulating, which determine when and how we will regulate. Through consistent application of those principles, we have eliminated unnecessary regulations and identified situations in which major programs could be implemented without regulations or with limited regulatory action.
In deciding when to regulate, we consider the following:
• Whether regulations are essential to promote quality and equality of opportunity in education.
• Whether a demonstrated problem cannot be resolved without regulation.
• Whether regulations are necessary to provide a legally binding interpretation to resolve ambiguity.
• Whether entities or situations subject to regulation are similar enough that a uniform approach through regulation would be meaningful and do more good than harm.
• Whether regulations are needed to protect the Federal interest, that is, to ensure that Federal funds are used for their intended purpose and to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse.
In deciding how to regulate, we are mindful of the following principles:
• Regulate no more than necessary.
• Minimize burden to the extent possible, and promote multiple approaches to meeting statutory requirements if possible.
• Encourage coordination of federally funded activities with State and local reform activities.
• Ensure that the benefits justify the costs of regulating.
• To the extent possible, establish performance objectives rather than specify the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt.
• Encourage flexibility, to the extent possible and as needed to enable institutional forces to achieve desired results.
The Department of Energy (DOE or The Department) makes vital contributions to the Nation's welfare through its activities focused on improving national security, energy supply, energy efficiency, environmental remediation, and energy research. The Department's mission is to ensure America's security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions.
Through its regulatory and deregulatory activities, the Department works to ensure it both achieves its critical mission, and implements the administration's initiative to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs as outlined in Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” As such, the Department strives to act in a prudent and financially responsible manner in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources, and manages appropriately the costs associated with private expenditures required for compliance with DOE regulations. Ultimately, DOE aims to promote meaningful regulatory burden reduction, while at the same time achieve its regulatory objectives and statutory obligations.
DOE's regulatory and deregulatory priorities reflect the Department's efforts to achieve meaningful burden reduction while continuing to achieve the Department's statutory obligations.
DOE's regulatory priorities reflect the Department's statutory obligations. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) requires DOE to review its appliance efficiency standards at least once every six years to determine whether a new standard can be implemented at a level that achieves the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. The Department continues to work to meet these obligations.
DOE is also engaging in a number of deregulatory activities aimed at reducing regulatory costs and burdens. These activities include expediting the approval process for applicants proposing to export small volumes of natural gas and taking a number of actions to right-size the safety requirements for persons conducting activities that affect, or may affect, the safety of DOE nuclear facilities.
For fiscal year 2017 and 2018 DOE plans to implement 7 regulatory actions and 16 deregulatory actions. DOE is largely focusing its resources on pursuing the deregulatory actions listed in the Regulatory Agenda. While none of the rulemakings listed as regulatory actions in DOE's regulatory agenda meet the Regulatory Plan criterion of “most important significant regulatory actions” of the agency, DOE is placing one action in its Regulatory Plan, for the purpose of transparency and due to the non-trivial costs of the proposed action: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Conventional Cooking Products. At the 7% and 3% discount rate the primary annualized cost for this rule is expected to be 42.6 million and 42.3 million dollars respectively. The primary annualized benefits at the 7% and 3% discount rate are expected to be 126 million and 178 million respectively.
In all its rulemakings, as required by E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” DOE ensures that the net benefits of any rule it publishes outweigh the costs of the rulemaking. Further, DOE will not issue a rule if that rule contains unjustified burdens.
As part of its efforts to comply with Section 6 of E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” which requires agencies to conduct a retrospective review of existing rules to identify rules that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome,” and to determine whether such regulations should be “modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed” DOE issued a request for information (RFI) on May 30, 2017, 82 FR 24582. Among other issues, this RFI requested insight from the public as to what regulations may meet the definition of E.O. 13563. DOE is reviewing all 132 comments received to gain a better insight into possible regulations that can be modified, streamlined, expanded or repealed. As required by Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda”, DOE also has established a regulatory reform task force, tasked with the mission of identifying regulations in need of reform, as specified in the order. The task force's activities are intended to assist DOE in meeting the objectives of E.O. 13563.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for consumer conventional cooking products is $42.3 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $163.3 million in reduced operating costs.
The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the reference year through the end of the analysis period (2017 to 2049). Using a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products is $1,241.6 million in 2016 dollars. Under the proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may experience a reduction of up to 4.7 percent of their INPV, which is approximately $58.4 million in 2016.
The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer benefits of the standards for consumer conventional cooking products ranges from $1.08 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $2.63 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for consumer conventional cooking products purchased in 2020-2049.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) carries out a wide array of activities in order to fulfill its mission of protecting and promoting the health and well-being of the American people. From supporting cutting-edge research and disease surveillance to regulating products and facilities to administering programs that help our citizens most in need of access to health care and social services, HHS's work has a clear impact on the daily life of all Americans.
In order to successfully carry out its mission, HHS is committed to a regulatory agenda that is focused on better meeting the needs of the individuals served by its programs, empowering individuals and communities by reducing the burden of compliance, and maximizing the impact of federal investments. Through its rulemakings in the coming fiscal year, HHS will take concrete steps towards streamlining its regulations and improving the transparency, flexibility, and accountability of its regulatory processes in order to realize a future where science, health care, and human services are fundamentally person-centered.
In order to better serve the American people through its programs, HHS will propose a number of regulatory actions aimed at improving service delivery through meaningful information sharing, supporting consumer autonomy and decision-making, and better aligning programs with the most current science.
In order to deliver quality health care and human services, stronger and clearer regulatory systems that promote the judicious sharing of personally identifiable information among care teams, individuals, and families are necessary, while protecting the confidentiality and security of that information. The Office of Civil Rights (OCR), the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) intend to promulgate rules related to the sharing of electronic data and records. In particular, OCR plans to propose a rule clarifying information sharing with family members when patients are incapacitated.
Integral to a person-centered approach to health care is the concept of autonomy and personal responsibility: Providing consumers with the information they need and choices so they can take responsibility for their health and better direct their own care. In order to provide patients with information that is useful, actionable, and comprehensible, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to amend its regulations regarding the information patients receive for outpatient-administered prescription drugs. To encourage more consumer-directed care, FDA also plans to propose regulations to facilitate access to more treatments for common conditions by using new approaches, including new technologies, to assist consumers in self-selection and use of products that have previously been available only by prescription.
In order to best respond to the needs of patients, it is crucial that HHS regulations and programs reflect current science. HHS is fulfilling this need by updating regulations so that the Department can utilize the full spectrum
In order to make HHS programs more person-centered, the rulemakings described above must be accompanied by serious efforts to decrease the burden of complying with Federal regulations. Regulatory burden can result from a variety of sources, including reporting requirements, outdated restrictions, requirements and/or conditions not required by the authorizing statutes, and a lack of clear regulatory guidelines. HHS is committed to streamlining and clarifying its regulations to reduce unnecessary burden while continuing to protect the public health and to meet the human services needs of the American people.
The Department recognizes the burden that requirements for many of its programs place on States, territories, tribes, local governments, industry, providers and facilities, caseworkers, grant recipients, and individuals. HHS plans to actively engage stakeholders in transparent, deliberative processes to ensure that the Department strikes an appropriate balance between reducing burden and continuing to administer high-quality programs. For example, The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) plans to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on its 2016 Final Rule on the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), which doubled reporting requirements for States and tribes. Through careful consideration of all comments submitted by the public during this process, ACF believes it can streamline the 2016 Rule so that States and tribes are able to devote less time and fewer resources to administrative work and redirect those efforts to the children they serve.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) plans to propose changes to the current Conditions of Participation (CoPs) or Conditions for Coverage (CfCs) that health care organizations must meet in order to begin and continue participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These changes will simplify and streamline the current regulations by reducing the frequency of certain required activities and, where appropriate, revising timelines for certain requirements for providers and suppliers. These changes will also increase provider flexibility and reduce excessively burdensome regulations, while allowing providers to focus on providing high-quality health care to their patients. Ultimately, these proposals balance patient safety and quality, while also providing broad regulatory relief for providers and suppliers.
Through initiatives to eliminate regulatory burdens that negatively impact the doctor-patient relationship, the Department will take steps to remove duplicative requirements, streamline data collection and reporting requirements, and make meaningful reforms to programs that limit access to care. For example, CMS plans to finalize the physician fee schedule, which will eliminate the redundant reporting of the modifier in the professional claim to reduce burden for eligible practitioners. The Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS), which HHS has finalized for fiscal year 2018, also reduces the electronic quality reporting measures from eight to four measures, to reduce burden for eligible practitioners and ensure they are spending more time caring for the patient rather than in front of a computer screen. HHS intends to continue building on this progress in the next fiscal year rule.
In addition to minimizing regulatory burden, HHS realizes that many of its regulations may contain provisions that are outdated, obsolete, or otherwise not applicable to the current environment. HHS has resolved to reform its processes so that those providing care and other services to Americans are able to thrive within the State and federal regulatory environment. As an early step in this broader effort, CMS plans to issue a proposed rule that will remove unnecessary and outdated requirements from the conditions of participation for the Medicare and Medicaid programs for Long-Term Care facilities. Currently, these requirements often impede the delivery of quality care and divert resources away from facility residents.
While the above rulemakings seek to correct overregulation, in some cases, HHS programs lack the necessary regulations in order to make their processes transparent and predictable. For example, in the context of FDA's tobacco program, rulemaking is needed to clarify for industry what is required to be included in premarket applications and the procedures that will be followed in submitting and reviewing these submissions as part of a comprehensive framework to regulate nicotine and tobacco and advance the public health. In addition, FDA is updating important rules for medical device applications so the rules reflect risk-based and least burdensome pathways to market for devices, including new and innovative devices. These rules will fill gaps to ensure that manufacturers in these sectors know how to bring innovative products to market that may save lives or reduce health risks. FDA intends to begin rulemaking this fiscal year to fill these regulatory gaps so that these processes become more fair, efficient, and predictable.
In response to extensive outreach to physician stakeholders, HHS anticipates a number of changes associated with private practice physicians and their arrangements with Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs). Of the nearly 200 regulatory burdens reported by more than 30 trade associations, 12 percent of the groups requested clarity with regards to the ways MAOs audit physicians and their practices. CMS plans on issuing a Part C and D rule for Contract Year 2019, that responds to these concerns. The rule will also seek comment on ways to improve MAO audits of solo practitioners and their practices.
In order to truly protect and promote the health and wellbeing of the American people, HHS must ensure that each and every taxpayer dollar it spends is used wisely and managed responsibly. HHS's efforts to reduce burden and move toward more person-centered programs must be coupled with a department-wide determination to do more with the resources that it has. By doing so, HHS hopes to use taxpayer funds responsibly to reach as many Americans in need as possible
A key component of maximizing the impact of HHS's investments—and protecting taxpayer dollars—is program integrity. Without consistent efforts to identify fraud, waste, and abuse and respond accordingly, the Department cannot be certain that its funds are going toward their intended use nor can it maintain the public's confidence in its programs. As such, the Department is committed to keeping program integrity a priority in the coming years. This year, CMS plans to finalize a rule that will implement crucial authorities provided by Congress to deny or revoke a provider or supplier's Medicare enrollment in certain circumstances specified in the rule. Additionally, HRSA plans to publish an NPRM imposing civil monetary penalties on drug manufacturers who knowingly and intentionally charge 340B program participants a price higher than the program ceiling price.
Alongside program integrity activities, HHS intends to enhance regulatory flexibility so that its State and community partners are able to better tailor their programs to fit the needs of the people they serve. Particularly in the context of the Secretary's three clinical priorities—combatting the opioid crisis, childhood obesity, and serious mental illness—the Department has begun looking seriously at its programs to see how it can maximize the number of people reached through amending its regulations to remove or change regulatory limitations on grantees and regulated entities. Specifically, SAMHSA plans to publish an NPRM exploring ways that it could better facilitate the ability of individuals with an Opioid Use Disorder to access interim maintenance treatment while they are waiting to begin a comprehensive treatment plan. In addition, ACF plans to consider revising minimum service duration requirements for Head Start center-based programs. Rulemaking carried out in 2016 nearly doubled the current minimum. If revised again, center-based Head Start programs would likely be able to serve more children and choose a duration that better reflects the needs and daily schedules of the families they serve.
As a way of promoting flexibility for States, CMS also plans to propose a rule related to Medicaid and CHIP Managed Care. This rule would streamline the regulatory framework and provide burden reductions to ensure state Medicaid agencies are able to work effectively with CMS to design, develop, and deploy managed care programs that meet the state population's needs. These changes support state flexibility, local leadership, and innovation in the delivery of care.
In the coming fiscal year, HHS plans to consider a number of regulatory and deregulatory actions intended to make its processes more flexible, efficient, and transparent. In order to fully realize the potential of these efforts, HHS recognizes the need for a collaborative rulemaking process where the concerns of stakeholders are appropriately considered. By working with its community partners to understand the challenges that they face under HHS's current regulatory structures and where there are opportunities for improvement, the Department hopes to modernize and streamline its regulations to better serve the needs of the American people.
This rule, if finalized, would permit lawful holders of part 2 information to work with contractors, subcontractors and legal representatives to make additional disclosures of part 2 information for certain payment and health care operations purposes when initial patient consent is obtained. The rule includes language which provides that the contractor and any subcontractor or legal representative are or will be fully bound by the provisions of part 2 upon receipt of the patient identifying data, and, as such that each disclosure shall be accompanied by a required redisclosure notice. SAMHSA does not believe the additional disclosures permitted will increase risks of data breaches or other risks to patients.
FDA is also proposing updates to modernize the regulations by incorporating current science and mammography best practices, including addressing breast density reporting to patients and health care providers.
These updates are intended to improve the delivery of mammography services.
We are therefore proposing changes to the current Conditions of Participation (CoPs) or Conditions for Coverage (CfCs) that would simplify and streamline the current regulations and thereby increase provider flexibility and reduce excessively burdensome regulations, while also allowing providers to focus on providing high-quality healthcare to their patients.
We are therefore proposing revisions to the requirements that long-term care facilities must meet to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs that would increase the ability of healthcare professionals to devote resources to improving resident care by eliminating or reducing requirements that impede quality care or that divert resources away from providing high quality care.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) was created in 2003 pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296. The DHS mission statement provides the following: “With honor and integrity, we will safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values.”
Fulfilling this mission requires the dedication of more than 225,000 employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear—keeping America safe.
Leading a unified national effort, DHS has five core missions: (1) Prevent terrorism and enhance security, (2) secure and manage our borders, (3) enforce
In achieving these goals, we are continually strengthening our partnerships with communities, first responders, law enforcement, and Government agencies—at the State, local, tribal, Federal, and international levels. We are accelerating the deployment of science, technology, and innovation in order to make America more secure, and we are becoming leaner, smarter, and more efficient, ensuring that every security resource is used as effectively as possible. For a further discussion of our mission, see the DHS website at
The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's fall 2017 regulatory plan and agenda support the Department's responsibility areas. These regulations will improve the Department's ability to accomplish its mission. Also, the regulations we have identified in this year's regulatory plan continue to address legislative initiatives such as the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3, 2007).
DHS strives for organizational excellence and uses a centralized and unified approach in managing its regulatory resources. The Office of the General Counsel manages the Department's regulatory program, including the agenda and regulatory plan. In addition, DHS senior leadership reviews each significant regulatory project to ensure that the project fosters and supports the Department's mission.
The Department is committed to ensuring that all of its regulatory initiatives are aligned with its guiding principles to protect civil rights and civil liberties, integrate our actions, build coalitions and partnerships, develop human resources, innovate, and be accountable to the American public.
In fiscal year 2018, DHS plans to finalize the following actions:
• 0 Executive Order 13771 regulatory actions
• 15 Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions (including information collections);
• 5 Executive Order 13771-exempt regulations; and
• 9 regulations for which we are unsure of their Executive Order 13771 designation. (
We provide further information about these actions in the DHS Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda.
DHS is also committed to the principles described in Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 (as amended). Both Executive orders direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
Finally, the Department values public involvement in the development of its regulatory plan, agenda, and regulations, and takes particular concern with the impact its regulations have on small businesses. DHS and its components continue to emphasize the use of plain language in our regulatory documents to promote a better understanding of regulations and to promote increased public participation in the Department's regulations.
The fall 2017 regulatory plan for DHS includes regulations from several DHS components, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Below is a discussion of the regulations that comprise the DHS fall 2017 regulatory plan.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. USCIS's role is to efficiently adjudicate and manage petitions, applications, and requests for immigration benefits for foreign nationals seeking lawful immigration status in the United States and for individuals seeking to become citizens of the United States, and other matters within the jurisdiction of the agency, in a manner that detects, deters, and prevents fraud, protects the jobs and working conditions of American workers as appropriate, and ensures the national security, public safety, and welfare of the American people. In the coming year, USCIS will promulgate several regulatory and deregulatory actions to directly support these commitments and goals.
The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) is a military, multi-mission, maritime service of the United States and the only military organization within DHS. It is the principal Federal agency responsible for the $4.5 trillion maritime transportation system, including maritime safety, security, and stewardship. The Coast Guard delivers daily value to the nation through multi-mission resources, authorities, and capabilities.
Effective governance in the maritime domain hinges upon an integrated approach to safety, security, and stewardship. The Coast Guard's policies and capabilities are integrated and interdependent, delivering results through a network of enduring partnerships with maritime stakeholders. Consistent standards of universal application and enforcement, which encourage safe, efficient, and responsible maritime commerce, are vital to the success of the maritime industry. The Coast Guard's ability to field versatile capabilities and highly-trained personnel is one of the U.S. Government's most significant and important strengths in the maritime environment.
America is a maritime nation, and our security, resilience, and economic prosperity are intrinsically linked to the oceans. Safety, efficient waterways, and freedom of transit on the high seas are essential to our well-being. The Coast Guard is leaning forward, poised to meet the demands of the modern maritime environment. The Coast Guard creates value for the public through solid prevention and response efforts. Activities involving oversight and regulation, enforcement, maritime presence, and public and private partnership foster increased maritime safety, security, and stewardship.
The statutory responsibilities of the Coast Guard include ensuring marine safety and security, preserving maritime mobility, protecting the marine environment, enforcing U.S. laws and international treaties, and performing search and rescue. The Coast Guard supports the Department's overarching goals of mobilizing and organizing our Nation to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other emergencies.
The Coast Guard does not have significant regulatory actions planned for the coming fiscal year; however, the Coast Guard is highlighting the following Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the Federal agency principally responsible for the security of our Nation's borders, both at and between the ports of entry and at official crossings into the United States. CBP must accomplish its border security and enforcement mission without stifling the flow of legitimate trade and travel. The primary mission of CBP is its homeland security mission, that is, to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States. An important aspect of this priority mission involves improving security at our borders and ports of entry, but it also means extending our zone of security beyond our physical borders.
CBP is also responsible for administering laws concerning the importation into the United States of goods, and enforcing the laws concerning the entry of persons into the United States. This includes regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting import duties; enforcing U.S. trade, immigration and other laws of the United States at our borders; inspecting imports, overseeing the activities of persons and businesses engaged in importing; enforcing the laws concerning smuggling and trafficking in contraband; apprehending individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally; protecting our agriculture and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases; servicing all people, vehicles, and cargo entering the United States; maintaining export controls; and protecting U.S. businesses from theft of their intellectual property.
In carrying out its mission, CBP's goal is to facilitate the processing of legitimate trade and people efficiently without compromising security. Consistent with its primary mission of homeland security, CBP intends to issue several regulations during the next fiscal year that are intended to improve security at our borders and ports of entry. During the upcoming year, CBP will also be working on various projects to streamline CBP processing, reduce duplicative processes, reduce various burdens on the public, and automate various paper forms. Below are descriptions of CBP's planned actions for fiscal year 2018.
In addition to the regulations that CBP issues to promote DHS's mission, CBP also issues regulations related to the mission of the Department of the Treasury. Under section 403(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the former-U.S. Customs Service, including functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. As part of the initial organization of DHS, the Customs Service inspection and trade functions were combined with the immigration and agricultural inspection functions and the Border Patrol and transferred into CBP. The Department of the Treasury retained certain regulatory authority of the U.S. Customs Service relating to customs revenue function. In addition to its plans to continue issuing regulations to enhance border security, CBP, in the coming year, expects to continue to issue regulatory documents that will facilitate legitimate trade and implement trade benefit programs. For a discussion of CBP regulations regarding the customs revenue function, see the regulatory plan of the Department of the Treasury.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a Nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. FEMA's ethos is to serve the Nation by helping its people
FEMA is working on various deregulatory actions in the coming fiscal year. FEMA will propose to remove outdated regulations that require publication of community loss of eligibility notices in the
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have any significant regulations planned for fiscal year 2018.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the principal criminal investigative arm of DHS and one of the three Department components charged with the civil enforcement of the Nation's immigration laws. Its primary mission is to protect national security, public safety, and the integrity of our borders through the criminal and civil enforcement of Federal law governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. During fiscal year 2018, ICE will focus rulemaking efforts on three priority regulations: Increasing the fees paid to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) to recover costs for services;
Below are ICE's significant regulatory actions for the coming fiscal year:
The National Protection and Programs Directorate's (NPPD) vision is a safe, secure, and resilient infrastructure where the American way of life can thrive. NPPD leads the national effort to protect and enhance the resilience of the Nation's physical and cyber infrastructure. Although NPPD does not plan to finalize any significant regulations within the next fiscal year, NPPD will undertake reviews of its existing regulations in accordance with Executive Order 13771. NPPD is also working on several future rulemaking projects, as reflected in the Unified Agenda.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. TSA applies an intelligence-driven, risk-based approach to all aspects of TSA's mission. This approach results in layers of security to mitigate risks effectively and efficiently. TSA uses established processes, working with stakeholders, to review programs, requirements, and procedures for appropriate modifications based upon changes in the environment, whether those changes result from an evolving threat or enhancements available through new technologies.
For the coming fiscal year, TSA is prioritizing deregulatory actions and regulatory actions that are required to meet statutory mandates and that are necessary for national security. Below are the planned TSA actions for fiscal year 2018.
In response to recommendations from industry submitted through the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC), TSA is assessing the risks associated with eliminating a requirement to have an armed security officer on flights accessing DCA. The DASSP requires each aircraft operating into or out of DCA with passengers to have onboard at least one armed security officer. The only exception to this requirement is for flights with a Federal Air Marshal on board. After this requirement was put in place, TSA implemented the Secure Flight program, which provides for vetting of passengers against the Terrorist Screening Database. The requirement for an armed security officer could be modified, and TSA could accept other alternative procedures, including Secure Flight vetting, that provide commensurate levels of security at lower costs. These procedures could include a requirement to limit passengers and crewmembers to those with a Known Traveler Number (KTN). A critical dependency for this proposed repeal of the armed security officer requirement would be the ability of DHS/TSA to quickly process requests for KTNs and the willingness of the regulated parties to bear the cost of obtaining a KTN.
This rule would streamline TSA's regulations to eliminate a burden no longer necessary under the current operating environment, and result in a net benefit, most likely to small businesses providing GA services. Finalizing this rule will ensure the continued balance between providing access and ensuring vital government assets in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. The security requirements in the final rule are necessary to defeat the threat posed by members of terrorist groups to vital U.S. assets and security in a manner that protects the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.
The United States Secret Service does not have any significant regulations planned for fiscal year 2018.
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise the DHS fall regulatory plan follows.
The proposal to raise the investment amounts and reform the targeted employment area (TEA) geography could deter some investors from participating in the EB-5 program. The increase in investment could reduce the number of investors as they may be unable or unwilling to invest at the higher proposed levels of investment. On the other hand, raising the investment amounts increases the amount invested by each investor and thereby potentially increases the total economic benefits of U.S. investment under this program. The proposed TEA provision would rule out TEA configurations that rely on a large number of census tracts indirectly linked to the actual project tract by numerous degrees of separation, and may better target investment capital to areas where unemployment rates are the highest.
Other, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Background and immigration status check for all railroad frontline employees is due no later than 12 months after date of enactment.
Sections 1411 and 1520 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), (121 Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007), require background checks of frontline public transportation and railroad employees not later than one year from the date of enactment. Requirement will be met through regulatory action.
Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Laura Gaudreau, Attorney-Advisor, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
According to sec, 3405 of Title III of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act, 2016 (Aviation Security Act of 2016), Public Law 114-190 (130 Stat. 615, July 15, 2016), a final rule revising the regulations under 49 U.S.C. 44936 is due 180 days after the date of enactment.
John Vergelli, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Requires the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to establish a process to implement the requirements of sec. 612(a) of Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176, Dec. 12, 2003; 117 Stat. 2490), including the fee provisions, not later than 60 days after the enactment of the Act.
Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch—Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
David Ross, Attorney-Advisor, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch—Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
David Kasminoff, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule for public transportation agencies is due one year after date of enactment.
Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Rule for railroads and over-the-road buses is due six months after date of enactment.
According to sec. 1408 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), (121 Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007), interim final regulations for public transportation agencies are due 90 days after the date of enactment (Nov. 1, 2007), and final regulations are due one year after the date of enactment. According to sec. 1517 of the 9/11 Act, final regulations for railroads and over-the-road buses are due no later than six months after the date of enactment.
Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch—Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Traci Klemm, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Since 1997, intervening statutory changes, including passage of the Homeland Security Act (HSA) and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), have significantly changed the applicability of certain provisions of the FSA. The proposed rule will codify the substantive terms of the FSA and enable the U.S. Government to seek termination of the FSA and litigation concerning its enforcement. Through this rule, ICE will create a pathway to ensure the humane detention of family units while satisfying the goals of the FSA. The rule will also implement related provisions of the TVPRA.
Since 1997, intervening legal changes including passage of the HSA and TVPRA have significantly changed the applicability of certain provisions of the FSA. The proposed rule will codify the substantive terms of the FSA and enable the U.S. Government to seek termination of the FSA and litigation concerning its enforcement. Through this rule, ICE will create a pathway to ensure the humane detention of family units while satisfying the goals of the FSA. The rule will also implement related provisions of the TVPRA.
ICE expects to incur costs related to new or additional procedures for immigration proceedings for alien minors. Benefits include enhancing the process and protections for alien minors. This regulation will also strengthen DHS efforts to combat human trafficking of minors. Other benefits are enabling the U.S. Government to seek termination of the FSA and litigation concerning its enforcement, as well as bringing clarity and certainty to the process of addressing alien minors.
The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA) requires the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in cooperation with representatives of State, tribal, and local emergency management agencies, to review, update, and revise through rulemaking the individual assistance factors FEMA uses to measure the severity, magnitude, and impact of a disaster (not later than 1 year after enactment).
FEMA is issuing this final rule to comply with SRIA and to provide clarity on the IA factors that FEMA currently considers in support of its recommendation to the President on whether a major disaster declaration authorizing IA is warranted. The additional clarity may reduce delays in the declaration process by decreasing the back and forth between States and FEMA during the declaration process.
FEMA estimated the 10-year present value total cost of the proposed rule would be $15,806 and $13,302 if discounted at 3 and 7 percent, respectively. The annualized cost of the proposed rule would be $1,853 at 3 percent and $1,894 at 7 percent. (All amounts in the NPRM are presented in 2013 dollars.) Benefits of the proposed rule include clarifying FEMA's existing practices, reducing processing time for requests due to clarifications, and providing States with notice of the new information FEMA is proposing to consider as part of the IA declarations process.
The Regulatory Plan for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 highlights the most significant regulations and policy initiatives that HUD seeks to complete during the upcoming fiscal year. As the federal agency that serves as the nation's housing agency, committed to addressing the housing needs of Americans, promoting economic and community development, and enforcing the nation's fair housing laws, HUD plays a significant role in the lives of families and in communities throughout America. The Department's programs help to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing, and create suitable living environments for all Americans. HUD also provides housing and other essential support to a wide range of individuals and families with special needs, including homeless individuals, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.
HUD's regulatory plan for FY2018 reflects the leadership and vision of Secretary Carson who has directed HUD, consistent with Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” to identify and eliminate or streamline regulation that are wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary. Executive Order 13771 directs that agencies manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. Toward this end, Executive Order 13771 directs that for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination and requires that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled. Consistent with this policy goal, the Secretary has also led HUD's implementation of Executive Order 13777, entitled “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” The Executive Order 13777 supplements and reaffirms the rulemaking principles of Executive Order 13771 by directing each agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to evaluate existing regulations to identify those that merit repeal, replacement, modification, are outdated, unnecessary, or are ineffective, eliminate or inhibit job creation, impose costs that exceed benefits, or derive from or implement Executive Orders that have been rescinded or significantly modified. HUD's Regulatory Reform Task Force has been hard at work to provide recommendations on which regulations to repeal, modify or keep to ensure those that remain effectively manage scarce federal resources, adequately protect low-income families and facilitate the development of affordable housing and provide the provide the opportunity for families to become self-sufficient. As a result, HUD's Fall 2017 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions lists two anticipated regulatory actions and eleven deregulatory actions.
The rules highlighted in HUD's regulatory plan for FY2018 reflect HUD's efforts to fulfill its mission and improve performance, including by removing regulations that HUD has determined are outdated, unnecessary, or are ineffective.
The Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA) (Pub. L. 114-201, approved July 29, 2016) amended the United States Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act) and other housing laws to modify multiple HUD programs, along with the Department of Agriculture's Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program. Significant amendments included setting a maximum income level for continued occupancy in public housing, expanding the availability of Family Unification Program vouchers for children aging out of foster care, changes to the housing quality standards for Section 8 Voucher units, multiple changes to the Project-Based Voucher (PBV) program, modifying requirements for mortgage insurance for condominiums under the Federal Housing Administration, creating a Special Assistant for Veterans Affairs in HUD, and changing the allocation formula for the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program.
On October 24, 2016, at 81 FR 73030, HUD issued a notice in the
HUD published another notice in the
Many of the statutory provisions in HOTMA are intended to streamline administrative processes and reduce burdens on PHAs and private owners. The January 18, 2017, notice implemented provisions that reduced the number and frequency of inspections required before allowing a family to move into a unit, limited the definition of PHA-owned housing and therefore reduced requirements for getting third parties involved in inspections, and reduced some of the requirements for submission to HUD for PHAs looking to project-base voucher assistance in projects currently under contract or previously assisted under a different form of assistance. Other provisions in HOTMA not yet implemented increase a PHA's ability to access databases to ease the burden of verifying income and also allow a family to self-certify as to the value of their assets when their assets are valued at less than $50,000.
HUD further intends to implement the new HOTMA provisions in such a way as to align policies and procedures across program offices, to include multifamily programs and programs that are administered by the Office of Community Planning and Development. Alignment will reduce disparities between the programs and better enable PHAs and owners to use multiple forms
HUD intends to complete this rulemaking in Fiscal Year 2018.
Executive Order 12866, as amended, requires the agency to provide its best estimate of the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all regulations included in the agency's Regulatory Plan that will be pursued in FY 2018. HUD expects that the neither the total economic costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million.
Many of the statutory provisions in HOTMA are intended to streamline administrative processes and reduce burdens on PHAs and private owners. The January 18, 2017, notice implemented provisions that reduced the number and frequency of inspections required before allowing a family to move into a unit, limited the definition of PHA-owned housing and therefore reduced requirements for getting third parties involved in inspections, and reduced some of the requirements for submission to HUD for PHAs looking to project-base voucher assistance in projects currently under contract or previously assisted under a different form of assistance. Other provisions in HOTMA not yet implemented increase a PHA's ability to access databases to ease the burden of verifying income and also allow a family to self-certify as to the value of their assets when their assets are valued at less than $50,000, which reduces the work required to determine the family's annual income.
HUD CPD programs that have mimicked provisions in the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 that were changed by HOTMA will also be affected. Alignment will reduce disparities between the programs and better enable PHAs and owners to use multiple forms of assistance to best serve their communities.
HOTMA provided HUD the authority to implement some statutory changes by notice, but not all of the changes included that authority. For those changes that were implemented by notice, HUD must make conforming changes to the regulations.
Many of the changes included additional flexibilities for public housing agencies (PHAs) and private owners, such as allowing for alternative inspection methods to reduce duplicative inspections, reducing paperwork requirements for project-basing vouchers in PHA-owned properties, and allowing for longer-term housing assistance payments contracts. The rule will also provide for more timely reviews of significant changes in family income to ensure the effective provision of assistance.
Compliance costs are expected to be minimal and one-time as PHAs and owners shift their practices to meet the new requirements.
The U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) serves the American people by managing one in every five acres of land in the United States, as well as on the Outer Continental Shelf. Interior manages these resources under a legal framework that includes regulations that ultimately affect many American's lives and livelihoods. Interior's Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) collects over $10 billion dollars annually from onshore and offshore energy production, one of the Federal Government's largest sources of non-tax revenue.
Interior manages more than 500 million acres of Federal lands, including more than 400 park units, more than 500 wildlife refuges, and more than a billion submerged offshore acres. Hundreds of millions of people visit Interior-managed lands each year for camping, hiking, hunting, and other outdoor recreation, which supports local communities and their economies. Interior provides access on public lands for energy development, which creates jobs and stimulates the U.S. economy. Interior manages water projects that are a lifeline and economic engine for many communities in the West; and manages forests and fights wildfires.
President Trump has made it a priority of his administration to reform regulatory requirements that negatively impact our economy while maintaining environmental standards. Since day one, Secretary Zinke has been committed to regulatory reform. Interior is playing a key role in regulatory reform and, pursuant to Executive Order 13777, has established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to make Interior's regulations work better for the American people. Interior continues to encourage and seek public input on these regulatory reform efforts.
Interior's regulatory and deregulatory priorities focus on:
• Promoting American Energy Independence
• Increasing outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans
• Enhancing conservation stewardship
• Improving management of species and their habitats
• Upholding trust responsibilities to the federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and addressing the challenges of economic development.
In Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth (March 28, 2017), President Trump announced it was in the national interest to promote clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation. The Executive Order directed the executive departments and agencies to immediately review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources and appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law. Interior's review and actions are included in its Final Report on Actions that Potentially Burden Domestic Energy (Final Energy Report). This report is available on the internet at
Among the actions that Interior identified and explained more fully in the Final Energy Report are the following:
• BLM published a proposed rule on July 25, 2017 (82 FR 24464), to rescind the final rule entitled “Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands,” 80 FR 16128 (March 26, 2015).
• BLM will review and revise the final rule entitled “Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation,” 81 FR 83008 (November 18, 2016).
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will review the final rule entitled “Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights,” 81 FR 79948 (November 14, 2016); and
• the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and/or the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will review
○ The proposed rule “Offshore Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance” published on April 5, 2016. See 81 FR 19717;
○ The final rule “Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf—Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control,” published on April 29, 2016. See 81 FR 25887, and
○ The final rule “Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf—Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf,” published on July 15, 2016. See 81 FR 46478.
On March 2, 2017, Secretary Zinke signed Secretarial Order (S.O.) 3347, Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation, which established a goal to enhance conservation stewardship, increase outdoor recreation, and improve the management of game species and their habitat. In S.O. No. 3356, Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories (September 15, 2017), Interior announced continued efforts to enhance conservation stewardship; increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans, including opportunities to hunt and fish; and improve the management of game species and their habitats for this generation and beyond.
To help meet these goals, S.O. 3356 directs, among other actions, Interior bureaus and offices to:
• Work cooperatively with state, tribal, and territorial wildlife agencies to ensure that hunting and fishing regulations for Department lands and waters complement the regulations on the surrounding lands and waters to the extent legally practicable;
• in close coordination and cooperation with the appropriate state, tribal, or territorial wildlife agency, begin the necessary process to modify regulations in order to advance shared wildlife conservation goals/objectives that align predator management programs, seasons, and methods of take permitted on all Department-managed lands and waters with corresponding programs, seasons, and methods established by state, tribal, and territorial wildlife management agencies to the extent legally practicable; and
• create a plan to update all existing regulations to be consistent with the Order.
BIA is committed to identifying opportunities to promote economic growth and the welfare of the people BIA serves by removing barriers to the development of energy and other resources in Indian country.
Interior has made substantial progress reducing its regulatory burdens upon the American public. After a thorough review of existing regulations planned for publication, Interior removed 154 regulatory actions from its Spring 2017 Agenda of Regulatory Actions. This reduced its previous inventory of 321 by almost half. In fiscal year 2018, Interior expects to finalize 28 deregulatory actions, resulting in more than a billion net present dollars (present value) of deregulatory cost savings. Interior does not currently expect to publish any significant regulatory actions during the next year that are subject to E.O. 13771. Throughout this document, the terms “deregulatory action” and “significant regulatory action” refer to actions that are subject to E.O. 13771.
The following sections give an overview of some of the major deregulatory and regulatory priorities of DOI bureaus and offices.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) enhances the quality of life, promotes economic opportunity, and protects and improves the trust assets of approximately 1.9 million American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives. BIA also provides quality education opportunities to students in Indian schools. BIA maintains a government-to-government relationship with the 567 federally recognized Indian tribes. The Bureau also administers and manages 55 million acres of surface land and 57 million acres of subsurface minerals held in trust by the United States for Indians and Indian tribes.
In the coming year, BIA's regulatory plan focuses on priorities that ease regulatory burdens on Tribes, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and others subject to BIA regulations, in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. BIA has identified one deregulatory action on the current Agenda that would streamline the right-of-way process for governmental entities seeking a waiver of the requirement to obtain a bond in certain cases. BIA has one significant regulatory action on the Agenda that would revise existing regulations governing off-reservation trust acquisitions to establish new items that must be included in an application and threshold criteria that must be met for off-reservation acquisitions before National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance will be required. The rule would also reinstate the 30-day delay for taking land into trust following a decision by the Secretary or Assistant Secretary. This rule is expected to have de minimis economic impacts and therefore likely exempt from offset requirements under E.O. 13771.
Because many of its existing regulations require compliance with the NEPA, BIA will examine whether it can streamline NEPA implementation, in accordance with E.O. 13807, Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects, and S.O. 3355, Streamlining National Environmental Policy Act Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more than 245 million acres of public land, primarily located in 12 Western states including Alaska. The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation, creating jobs throughout the country and generating non-tax royalty revenue for the Federal government. As stewards, BLM has a multiple-use mission to provide opportunities for economic growth through energy development, ranching, mining, and logging, as well as outdoor recreation activities such as camping, hunting, and fishing, while also supporting conservation efforts. Public lands provide valuable tangible goods and materials the American people use every day to heat their homes, build their roads, and feed their families. The BLM works hard to be a good neighbor in the communities it serves, and is committed to keeping public landscapes healthy and productive.
BLM has identified the following four deregulatory actions for the coming year with total estimated cost savings of at least $156 million:
• Rescission of the 2015 BLM Hydraulic Fracturing Rule (RIN 1004-AE51)
• Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation; Delay and Suspension of Implementation Dates for Certain Requirements (RIN 1004-AE54)
• Revision or Rescission of the 2016 Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation rule (RIN 1004-AE53)
• Resource Management Planning (RIN 1004-AE39—CRA nullification conforming rule)
BLM has no significant regulatory actions subject to E.O. 13771 planned in FY 2018.
•
In March 2015, the BLM finalized a rule that would impose requirements on operators using hydraulic fracturing on Federal and Indian oil and gas leases. However, before the rule became effective, a U.S. Federal District Court granted a preliminary injunction and then set aside the rule, preventing the BLM from implementing it. The rule has never gone into effect. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, however, vacated the district court's decision in September 2017. If there are no further proceedings in the Tenth Circuit, the mandate will issue to the district court on November 13, 2017. If that were to happen, the BLM would need to decide how to phase in compliance with the rule. The rescission of these requirements would not leave hydraulic fracturing operations unregulated, as operators still need to comply with other Federal regulations and requirements, state regulations, and tribal regulations, where applicable.
This is a good example of a regulation that is a prime candidate for regulatory reform because of the multiple regulations by authorities at the Federal, State, and tribal levels. The BLM found that all 32 states with Federal oil and gas operations leases currently have laws or regulations to address hydraulic fracturing. Furthermore, since the 2015 final rule, more companies are using state-level resources to ensure compliance with other applicable Federal and state-level regulations. This redundancy makes the BLM rule an unnecessary regulatory burden, irrespective of whether BLM even has the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing.
Secretary of the Interior Ryan K. Zinke issued Secretarial Order No. 3349 entitled, “American Energy Independence” on March 29, 2017, which, among other things, directed the BLM to proceed expeditiously to propose to rescind the 2015 final rule. Upon further review of the 2015 final rule, as directed by Executive Order 13783, and Secretarial Order No. 3349, the BLM determined that the 2015 final rule unnecessarily burdens industry with compliance costs and information requirements that duplicate regulatory programs of many states and some tribes. As a result, on July 25, 2017 BLM proposed to rescind, in its entirety, the 2015 final rule. Rescinding the hydraulic fracturing rule will reduce regulatory burdens by enabling oil and gas operations to operate under one set of regulations within each state or tribal lands, rather than two.
•
Executive Order 13783 required Interior to review the final rule entitled, “Oil and Gas, Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation,” 81 FR 83008 (Nov. 18, 2016), also known as the “Venting and Flaring” rule. S.O. 3349 also ordered the BLM to review the rule. During the review, the BLM found that parts of the rule imposed unnecessary burdens on industry. It published a proposed rule in the
A temporary suspension or delay, if implemented, would avoid compliance costs on operators for requirements that may be rescinded or significantly revised in the near future. For certain requirements in the 2016 rule that have yet to be implemented, the proposed rule would temporarily postpone the implementation dates. For certain requirements in the 2016 rule that are currently in effect, the proposed rule would temporarily suspend them. This would give the BLM sufficient time to review the 2016 final rule and consider revising or rescinding its requirements. This will also provide industry additional time to plan for and engineer responsive infrastructure modifications that will comply with the regulation. It will lower the cost of compliance and spread the cost over more time.
•
During the review of the Venting and Flaring rule, the BLM determined that the rule is inconsistent with the policy stated in E.O. 13783 that “it is in the national interest to promote clean and safe development of our nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation.” Consistent with this finding, the BLM intends to issue a proposed rule that would eliminate overlap with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Air Act authorities and clarify requirements related to the beneficial use of gas on Federal and Indian lands.
•
The BLM published the Planning 2.0 Rule on December 12, 2016 (81 FR 89580). The rule became effective on January 11, 2017. However, President Trump signed a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which was signed into law as Public Law 115-12 on March 27, 2017. Under the terms of the Congressional Review Act, the rule is “treated as though such rule had never taken effect.” 5 U.S.C. 801(f). The BLM is publishing a rule to remove nullified language from the Code of Federal Regulations to conform the Code of Federal Regulations to the CRA resolution. OMB views actions under the CRA as deregulatory for purposes of E.O. 13771. Some commenters expressed concern that the nullified rule would have moved decisions to the BLM Director in Washington, DC and away from states and local communities that are most affected by land use decisions.
BOEM is committed to the Administration proposition that “A brighter future depends on energy policies that stimulate our economy, ensure our security, and protect our health.” In accordance with Executive Order 13783 of March 28, 2017,
BOEM is carefully analyzing two Interior rules related to offshore energy that are identified in E.O. 13795 (Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy). To implement that Executive Order, Interior issued S.O. 3350, America-First Offshore Energy Strategy, which enhances opportunities for energy exploration, leasing, and development on the OCS; establishes regulatory certainty for OCS activities; and enhances conservation stewardship, thereby providing jobs, energy security, and revenue for the American people. That order also provides deadlines for review of the rules identified in the E.O. Specifically, S.O. 3350 directs BOEM to:
• Immediately cease all activities to promulgate the “
• Promptly review, in consultation with the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), the final rule “
BOEM has no significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2018.
Since renewable energy regulations were promulgated in 2009, BOEM has made substantial progress moving forward with the planning and
BOEM will continue to be responsive to the various regulatory reform initiatives, including identifying and acting upon any regulations, orders, guidance, policies or any similar actions that could potentially burden the development or utilization of domestically produced energy sources.
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement's (BSEE) mission is to promote offshore conservation, development and production of offshore energy resources while ensuring that offshore operations are safe and environmentally responsible. BSEE's priorities in fulfillment of its mission are to: (1) Promote and regulate offshore energy development using the full range of authorities, policies, and tools to ensure safety and environmental responsibility; and (2) build and sustain the organizational, technical, and intellectual capacity within and across BSEE's key functions in order to keep pace with offshore industry technology improvements, innovate in economically sound regulation and enforcement, and reduce risk through appropriate risk assessment and regulatory and enforcement actions.
Consistent with the directions in Executive Orders (E.O.s) issued in March 2017 (
BSEE has identified the following four deregulatory actions under E.O. 13771 as high priorities:
•
In April 2016, BSEE issued a final rule entitled “Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control.” BSEE will propose a rule to reduce regulatory burdens and encourage job-creating development, while still ensuring safe and environmentally sustainable offshore operations. Among the changes it is considering are:
○ Revising the requirements for sufficient accumulator capacity and remotely-operated vehicle (ROV) capability to both open and close rams on subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs) (
○ Revising the requirement to shut in platforms when a lift boat approaches within 500 feet;
○ Extending the 14-day interval between pressure testing of BOP systems to 21 Days in appropriate situations;
○ Clarifying that the requirement for weekly testing of two BOP control stations means testing one station (not both stations) per week;
○ Simplifying testing pressures for verification of ram closure; and
○ Revising or deleting the requirement to submit test results to BSEE District Managers within 72 hours.
•
In July 2016, BSEE and BOEM jointly issued a final rule entitled “Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf—Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf.” BSEE is reviewing its provisions in the joint rule to identify potential opportunities reduce regulatory burdens while still ensuring safe and environmentally sustainable offshore operations. Some of the revisions BSEE is considering are:
○ Eliminating the requirement for capture of water-based muds and cuttings;
○ Eliminating the requirement for a cap and flow system and containment dome that are capable of being located at the well site within 7 days of loss of well control;
○ Eliminating the reference to the expected return of sea ice from the requirements to be able to drill a relief well within 45 days of loss of well control; and
○ Eliminating the reference to equivalent technology from the mudline cellar requirement.
BOEM and BSEE are also exploring joint options that would allow greater flexibility for operators to continue to drill later into the Arctic drilling season. If they are successful in implementing this strategy, exploration of the Nation's Arctic oil and gas reserves will increase while providing appropriate safety and environmental protection.
BOEM and BSEE will engage stakeholders before proposing rulemaking and the list of potential areas for proposed reform may be adjusted based on feedback received.
•
In September 2016, BSEE issued a final rule entitled “Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf-Oil and Gas Production Safety Systems.” BSEE is reviewing the rule to identify opportunities to reduce regulatory burdens while still ensuring safe and environmentally sustainable offshore operations. If BSEE identifies areas for deregulation, it plans to tier a proposed rule behind the Well Control Rule and Arctic rule in terms of potential burden reduction.
In addition to the rules previously identified, BSEE is reviewing the remainder of its regulations to identify other requirements that could be modified to increase efficiency, streamline processes, reduce industry burden, and maximize energy resources while ensuring offshore operations are performed in a safe and environmentally sustainable manner.
BSEE has no significant regulatory actions subject to E.O. 13771 planned for fiscal year 2018.
For the benefit of all Americans, the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) collects, accounts for, and verifies natural resource and energy revenues due to States, American Indians, and the U.S. Treasury. This revenue goes to State governments, as
ONRR finalized the repeal of its Consolidated Federal Oil & Gas and Federal & Indian Coal Valuation Reform rule on September 6, 2017. ONRR plans one deregulatory action for fiscal year 2018, the repeal of its rule on service of official correspondence.
ONRR has no significant regulatory actions subject to E.O. 13771 planned for fiscal year 2018.
ONRR also will seek ideas to reduce the Federal regulatory burden through advice received from the reinstatement of key committees that will assess and advise ONRR on royalty policies and regulatory actions related to natural resource and energy revenues.
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) was created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). Under SMCRA, OSMRE has two principal functions—the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations, and the reclamation and restoration of abandoned coal mine lands. In enacting SMCRA, Congress directed OSMRE to “strike a balance between protection of the environment and agricultural productivity and the Nation's need for coal as an essential source of energy.” OSMRE seeks to develop and maintain a regulatory program that provides a safe, cost-effective, and environmentally sound supply of coal to help support the Nation's economy and local communities.
• Stream Protection.
The Stream Protection rule was nullified under the Congressional Review Act. OSMRE will conform the Code of Federal Regulations to the Congressional action and will consider options to protect resources in a way that does not unnecessarily burden the American people. OSMRE estimates that this action will result in deregulatory cost savings of approximately $82 million. See 82 FR 54924 (November 17, 2017).
OSMRE is reviewing additional actions to reduce burdens on coal development, including, for example, reviewing the state program amendment process to reduce the time it takes to formally amend an approved regulatory program.
OSMRE has no significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2018.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. FWS also provides opportunities for Americans to enjoy the outdoors and our shared natural heritage.
FWS fulfills its responsibilities through a diverse array of programs that:
• Protect and recover endangered and threatened species;
• Monitor and manage migratory birds;
• Enforce Federal wildlife laws and regulate international trade;
• Conserve and restore wildlife habitat such as wetlands;
• Help foreign governments conserve wildlife through international conservation efforts;
• Distribute Federal funds to States, territories, and tribes for fish and wildlife conservation projects; and
• Manage the more than 150 million acres of land and water from the Caribbean to the remote Pacific in National Wildlife Refuge System, which protects and conserves fish and wildlife and their habitats, and allows the public to engage in outdoor recreational activities.
During the next year, FWS regulatory priorities will include:
•
FWS will take multiple regulatory actions under the ESA to prevent the extinction of and facilitate recovery of both domestic and foreign animal and plant species. Accordingly, FWS will add species to, remove species from, and reclassify species on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and designate critical habitat for certain listed species, in accordance with the National Listing Workplan. The Workplan enables us to prioritize our workload based on the needs of candidate and petitioned species, while providing greater clarity and predictability about the timing of listing determinations to state wildlife agencies, non-profit organizations, and other diverse stakeholders and partners, with the goal of encouraging proactive conservation so that federal protections are not needed in the first place. The Workplan represents the conservation priorities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) based on our review of scientific information. In addition, FWS, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service, will improve how the ESA is administered and reduce unneeded burdens. FWS will review opportunities to create efficiencies and streamline the consultation process and the listing and delisting process.
☐
In carrying out our responsibility to manage migratory bird populations, we issue annual migratory bird hunting regulations, which establish the frameworks (outside limits) for States to establish season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting.
To become more efficient and timely, the FWS is reviewing public input and considering whether additional regulatory changes would be appropriate to reduce the burden on industry and allow applicants to proceed more quickly through the bald and golden eagle permit process.
•
In carrying out its statutory responsibility to provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on NWRS lands, FWS issues an annual rule to update the hunting and fishing regulations on specific refuges.
•
Under the Acts, the FWS distributes annual apportionments to States from trust funds derived from excise tax revenues and fuel taxes. FWS continues to work closely with state fish and wildlife agencies on how to use these funds to implement conservation projects. To strengthen its partnership with State conservation organizations, FWS is working on several rules to update and clarify our regulations. Planned regulatory revisions will help to reflect several new decisions agreed upon by state conservation organizations.
•
In accordance with section 3(a) of Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation), FWS will update its CITES regulations to incorporate provisions resulting from the 16th and 17th Conference of the
FWS has no significant regulatory actions that are subject to E.O. 13771 planned for fiscal year 2018.
The National Park Service (NPS) preserves the natural and cultural resources and values within 417 units of the National Park System encompassing nearly 84 million acres of lands and waters for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The NPS also cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout the United States and the world.
The NPS intends to issue a number of deregulatory actions in this regulatory period and no significant regulatory actions.
The NPS will undertake deregulatory actions under Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) that will reduce regulatory costs. Several of these actions also comply with section 6 of Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) because they will remove or modify outdated and excessively complicated and burdensome regulations.
• The NPS intends to issue a proposed rule that would revise existing regulations implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) to streamline requirements for museums and Federal agencies. The rule would describe the NAGPRA process in accessible language with clear time parameters, eliminate ambiguity, clarify terms, and improve efficiency.
• The NPS will issue a final rule that removes an outdated reference to a document establishing environmental criteria for power transmissions lines that is no longer used by the NPS to evaluate applications for rights of way.
• The NPS intends to issue a proposed rule containing technical and clarifying edits. This rule would remove obsolete regulations establishing different criminal penalties for violating NPS regulations in military parks and national historic sites. This rule would also clarify existing regulations to comply with recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. This clarification would state that a motor vehicle operator may not be required to submit a blood test to measure blood alcohol and drug content without a search warrant.
• The NPS intends to issue a proposed rule that would state that the NPS will not prohibit nor require a permit for or prohibit an individual from transporting a bow or crossbow that is not ready for immediate use across National Park System Units if the possession and transportation of the bow or crossbow is in compliance with state law.
Additionally, enabling regulations are considered deregulatory under guidance to E.O. 13771. The NPS will undertake several enabling regulatory actions in the coming year that will provide new opportunities for the public to enjoy and experience certain areas within the National Park System. These include regulations authorizing (i) off-road vehicle use at Cape Lookout National Seashore (final rule) and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (proposed rule); (ii) bicycling at Rocky Mountain National Park (final rule) and Pea Ridge National Military Park (proposed rule); and (iii) the launching of non-motorized vessels from Colonial National Historic Park (proposed rule).
All of these actions will allow the public to use NPS-administered lands and waters in a manner that protects the resources and values of the National Park System.
Through S.O. 3349, American Energy Independence (Mar. 29, 2017), the U.S. Department of the Interior announced its intention to review all existing actions that potentially burden the development or utilization of domestically produced energy resources and suspend, revise, or rescind such agency actions as soon as practicable. In accordance with this Secretarial Order, the NPS will review the final rule entitled “General Provisions and Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights,” 81 FR 77972 (November 4, 2016).
The NPS intends to take a fresh look at a final rule on sport hunting and trapping in Alaska that published in October 2015 (80 FR 65325). This final rule amended
The NPS intends to finalize a regulation allowing the free-distribution of message bearing items such as readable electronic media; clothing and accessories; buttons; pins; and bumper stickers. This will give visitors an additional channel of communication when visiting NPS-administered areas.
The Bureau of Reclamation's mission is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. To accomplish this mission, we employ management, engineering, and science to achieve effective and environmentally sensitive solutions. Reclamation projects provide: Irrigation water service, municipal and industrial water supply, hydroelectric power generation, water quality improvement, groundwater management, fish and wildlife enhancement, outdoor recreation, flood control, navigation, river regulation and control, system optimization, and related uses. We have continued to focus on increased security at our facilities.
The Bureau of Reclamation will publish no deregulatory or significant regulatory actions in fiscal year 2018.
Its regulatory program focus in Fiscal Year 2018 is to publish a proposed nonsignificant amendment to 43 CFR part 429 to bring it into compliance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 5, Commercial Filming and Similar Projects and Still Photography on Certain Areas under Department Jurisdiction. Publishing this rule would implement the provisions of Public Law 106-206, which directs the establishment of permits and reasonable fees for commercial filming and certain still photography activities on public lands.
Legal Authority: 25 U.S.C. 396d; 25 U.S.C. 2107; 30 U.S.C. 189; 30 U.S.C.
The solemn duty of the Department of Justice is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States so that all Americans can live in peace and security. As the chief law enforcement agency of the United States government, the Department of Justice's most fundamental mission is to protect people by enforcing the rule of law. To fulfill this mission, the Department is devoting the resources necessary and utilizing the legal authorities available to combat violent crime and terrorism, prosecute drug offenses, and enforce immigration laws. Because the Department of Justice is primarily a law enforcement agency and not a regulatory agency, it carries out its principal investigative, prosecutorial, and other enforcement activities through means other than the regulatory process.
This year, the Department of Justice has substantially revised and improved its procedures for evaluating new regulatory actions and analyzing the costs that would be imposed. Executive Order 13771 (E.O. 13771), titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017), requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify two existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation. In furtherance of this requirement, section 2(c) of E.O. 13771 requires the new incremental costs associated with new regulations, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations. Section 3(a) states that starting with fiscal year 2018, “the head of each agency shall identify, for each regulation that increases incremental cost, the offsetting regulations described in section 2(c) of [E.O. 13771], and provide the agency's best approximation of the totals costs or savings associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation.”
The Department does not anticipate publishing any new significant Regulatory actions during fiscal year 2018 that would impose additional costs or burdens. Accordingly, none of the Department's anticipated fiscal year 2018 rulemaking actions would be subject to the two-for-one offset requirements of E.O. 13771. Instead, the Department has identified five Deregulatory actions (RIN 1117-AB42; RIN 1117-AB44; RIN 1117-AB46; RIN 1121-AA85; and RIN 1125-AA25), along with one revision to an information collection, expected to be finalized during fiscal year 2018, The Department and its regulatory components also are already reviewing other possible regulatory changes to reduce regulatory burdens and to streamline existing regulations, though those initiatives are not expected to be promulgated in final form during fiscal year 2018.
In addition to the new cost analyses being conducted pursuant to E.O. 13771, the Department is actively carrying out the provisions of E.O. 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” 82 FR 12285 (Mar. 1, 2017). The Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force, chaired by Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, is actively working to evaluate existing Department regulatory actions and to make recommendations regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification in order to reduce unnecessary burdens. The Task Force published a public notice in the
The regulatory priorities of the Department include initiatives in the areas of federal grant programs, criminal law enforcement, immigration, and civil rights. These initiatives are summarized below. In addition, several other components of the Department carry out important responsibilities through the regulatory process. Although their regulatory efforts are not separately discussed in this overview of the regulatory priorities, those components have key roles in implementing the Department's anti-terrorism and law enforcement priorities.
OJP provides innovative leadership to federal, state, local, and tribal justice systems; by disseminating state-of-the-art knowledge and practices; and providing financial assistance for the implementation of crime fighting strategies. OJP, through the Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Program, supports public safety officers by providing financial assistance to eligible officers who sustain qualifying line-of-duty injuries, and to the eligible survivors of officers killed in the line of duty. The program also provides educational assistance to certain survivors of public safety officers.
In fiscal year 2018, OJP will promulgate a significant final rule amending and updating the regulations implementing the Public Safety Officers Benefits (PSOB) Program (RIN 1121-AA85). This rule will finalize two proposed rules to update and improve the OJP regulations implementing the PSOB Program, in order to incorporate several statutory changes enacted in recent years, and improve the efficiency of the PSOB Program claims process.
The final rule makes conforming changes required by the Dale Long Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act of 2012 pertaining, among other things, to members of a rescue squad or ambulance crew engaging in rescue activity or in the provision of emergency medical services. That Act also amended provisions relating to cases involving certain medical conditions and the payment offset scheme for the PSOB Program relative to the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Program. The final rule also makes changes in response to perceived ambiguities and gaps in existing regulations, as well as opportunities to simplify and improve the program's administration—for example, making explicit the agency's authority to prescribe an online claim filing system, creating a process to facilitate the interaction between evidence gathering and claim processing, simplifying the process for claimant representatives to seek fees for their services, and updating various definitions. These changes are responsive to the public comments on the proposed rules as well as recommendations from an OIG Audit finalized in July 2015, and other internal reviews that identified the need to streamline the claims review process to reduce delays and increase transparency.
In addition to the PSOB final rule, OJP will continue to review its existing regulations to streamline them, where possible. OJP is drafting the final rule for the OJJDP Formula Grant Program, for which OJP published a partial final rule in in early 2017. OJP anticipates that the final OJJDP Formula Grant Program rule would finalize certain substantive aspects of the proposed rule, and also streamline and improve the existing regulation by providing or revising definitions for clarity, and by deleting text that unnecessarily repeats statutory provisions, has been rendered obsolete by statutory changes, or that addresses matters already (or better) addressed in other places (
ATF issues regulations to enforce the Federal laws relating to the manufacture and commerce of firearms and explosives. ATF's mission and regulations are designed, among other objectives, (1) to curb illegal traffic in, and criminal use of, firearms and explosives, and (2) to assist State, local, and other Federal law enforcement agencies in reducing crime and violence. ATF will continue, as a priority during fiscal year 2018, to seek modifications to its regulations governing commerce in firearms and explosives to fulfill these objectives.
Among other regulatory reviews and initiatives, ATF plans to update its regulations requiring notification of stored explosive materials to require annual reporting (RIN 1140-AA51). This regulatory action is intended to increase safety for emergency first responders and the public.
ATF plans to issue regulations to finalize the current interim rules implementing the provisions of the Safe Explosives Act (RIN 1140-AA00). The Department is also planning to finalize a proposed rule to codify regulations (27 CFR part 771) governing the procedure and practice for proposed denial of applications for explosives licenses or permits and proposed revocation of such licenses and permits (RIN 1140-AA38). As proposed, this rule is a regulatory action that clarifies the administrative hearing processes for explosives licenses and permits. This rule promotes open government and disclosure of ATF's procedures and practices for administrative actions involving explosive licensees or permittees.
ATF also has begun a rulemaking process that amends 27 CFR part 447 to update the terminology in the ATF regulations based on similar terminology amendments made by the Department of State on the U.S. Munitions List in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, and the Department of Commerce on the Commerce Control List in the Export Administration Regulations (RIN 1140-AA49).
DEA is the primary agency responsible for coordinating the drug law enforcement activities of the United States and also assists in the implementation of the President's National Drug Control Strategy. DEA implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 801-971), as amended, collectively referred to as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). DEA's mission is to enforce the CSA and its regulations and bring to the criminal and civil justice system those organizations and individuals involved in the growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances and listed chemicals appearing in or destined for illicit traffic in the United States. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States.
Pursuant to its statutory authority, DEA continuously evaluates new and emerging substances to determine whether such substances should be controlled under the CSA. During fiscal year 2018, in addition to initiating temporary scheduling actions to prevent imminent hazard to public safety, DEA will also consider petitions to control or reschedule various substances. Among other regulatory reviews and initiatives, DEA plans to update its regulations to implement provisions of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (RIN 1117-AB42) relating to the dispensing of narcotic drugs for the purpose of maintenance or detoxification treatment.
In fiscal year 2018, DEA anticipates issuing no Regulatory actions that impose additional costs. Rather, DEA plans to publish four Deregulatory actions (RIN 1117-AB42; RIN 1117-AB43; RIN 1117-AB44; and RIN 1117-AB46). These deregulatory actions do not include non-rulemaking items, such as agency guidance and information collections, which do not appear in the Unified Agenda. Consistent with E.O. 13771 and E.O. 13777, DEA anticipates reviewing existing regulations to identify those that are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective. DEA will solicit public comments during such reviews, as appropriate, to engage with the affected DEA registrant community and members of the public.
BOP issues regulations to enforce the Federal laws relating to its mission of protecting society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. During the next 12 months, BOP will continue its ongoing efforts to develop regulatory actions aimed at: (1) Streamlining regulations, eliminating unnecessary language and improving readability; (2) improving inmate disciplinary procedures and sanctions, improving safety in facilities through the use of less-than-lethal force instead of traditional weapons; and (3) providing effective literacy programming which
EOIR's primary mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation's immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. The immigration judges adjudicate approximately 180,000 cases each year to determine whether aliens should be ordered removed from the United States or should be granted some form of relief or protection from removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) has jurisdiction over appeals from the decisions of immigration judges, as well as other matters. Accordingly, the Attorney General has a continued role in the conduct of immigration proceedings, including removal proceedings and custody determinations regarding the detention of aliens pending completion of removal proceedings. The Attorney General also is responsible for civil litigation and criminal prosecutions relating to the immigration laws.
In several pending rulemaking actions, the Department is working to revise and update the regulations relating to immigration proceedings in order to increase efficiencies and productivity, while also safeguarding due process. In particular, EOIR is planning to publish a final regulation to significantly reduce the current backlog of immigration cases, by amending the regulations governing the statutory annual limitation on cancellation of removal and suspension of deportation decisions to allow immigration judges and the Board to issue denials after the annual 4,000-grant statutory cap is reached, instead of the current regulatory requirement to reserve all decisions irrespective of the outcome (RIN 1125-AA25). EOIR is further working to finalize a jurisdiction and venue rule that will provide clarification regarding an immigration judge's authority to conduct proceedings, how venue is determined, and what circuit court law applies (RIN 1125-AA52). In particular, EOIR is developing mechanisms in this rule intended to streamline certain venue changes to achieve cost savings to the agency and increase due process to the parties. In addition, in response to Executive Order 13563, the Department is retrospectively reviewing EOIR's regulations to eliminate regulations that unnecessarily duplicate DHS's regulations and update outdated references to the pre-2003 immigration system (RIN 1125-AA71). As part of that review, EOIR also intends to revise a number of existing regulations, where needed, in response to Executive Order 13768 to ensure the faithful and efficient execution of the immigration laws of the United States.
EOIR is working on long-term plans to revise a number of existing regulations, as it moves forward with the next phases of its electronic case access and filing system to provide for the option of electronic submission of information, when practicable, as a substitute for paper. In 2013, EOIR published a final rule, Registry for Attorneys and Representatives (RIN 1125-AA39), establishing an electronic registration process for attorneys and accredited representatives practicing before immigration judges and the Board. That rule was the initial step in a multi-year, multi-phased initiative to make the transition to an electronic case access and filing system within EOIR. This endeavor is intended to comply with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, Public Law 105-277 (“GPEA”), and the E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, Dec. 17, 2002 (“E-Gov”), to achieve the Department's vision for improved immigration adjudication processing and to meet the public expectations for electronic government. The GPEA provides that, when practicable, Federal agencies will provide for the electronic submission of information. The E-Gov is intended to enhance OMB's management and promotion of electronic government services and processes utilizing a broad framework of measures that require, amongst a number of initiatives, the use of internet-based and emerging information technologies to enhance citizen participating and access to Government information and services. EOIR anticipates considerable cost savings from the further expansion of its electronic filing systems including, but not limited to, the elimination of costs for managing and storing paper records; eliminating storage space; improving internal efficiencies and response times both internally and to the public through workflow automation and cutting labor expenses (time for printing, copying, filing, and document research using unsearchable paper); and lowering equipment expenses by reducing the need for printers and fax machines, and added maintenance cost.
CRT issues regulations to enforce Federal laws relating to discrimination in employment-related immigration practices, the coordination of enforcement of non-discrimination in federally assisted programs, and Federal laws relating to disability discrimination.
The Department is reviewing its regulatory priorities and associated agenda pursuant to the regulatory reform provisions of Executive Orders 13771 and 13777. As the Department continues to review its regulatory priorities, CRT does not plan to promulgate any new regulations in the areas outlined above over the next 12 months. The Department is withdrawing four CRT rulemakings that were previously designated as Inactive: (1)
Pursuant to the regulatory reform provisions of Executive Orders 13771 and 13777, CRT is undertaking an independent review of its guidance documents to determine whether any of those documents may be outdated, inconsistent, or duplicative. CRT is also reviewing comments relevant to its work that were submitted in response to a Notice published in the
In addition, CRT plans to initiate a retrospective review of its existing regulations implementing titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Accordingly, as part of the Department's effort to implement Executive Orders 13777 and 13771, the Department plans to issue a Notice titled
The Department of Labor's mission is to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights. The Department is guided by the idea that employers must be held accountable for their legal obligations to their employees, while recognizing that the Department also has a duty to help employers understand and comply with the many laws and regulations affecting their workplaces.
The Secretary of Labor has made protecting America's employees a top priority. Under his leadership, the Department is committed to fully and fairly enforcing the laws under its jurisdiction. The vast majority of employers work hard to keep their workplaces safe and to comply with wage and pension laws. Acknowledging this, the Department is working to provide compliance assistance, to give employers the knowledge and tools they need to comply with their obligations in these areas. Compliance with the law is, however, mandatory. Employers that do not comply with the law will continue to see full enforcement.
In addition to providing for workforce protections, the regulatory plan below also includes regulations designed to promote apprenticeship programs, with the goal of providing a way to ensure that workers are receiving the skills they need to get a job. Too many Americans see that jobs are available, but these jobs require skills that they do not have. By expanding apprenticeship programs we can help close this skills gap and route workers directly into good jobs.
In general, the Department will work to assist employees and employers to meet their needs in a helpful manner, with a minimum of rulemaking.
The Department will roll back regulations that harm American workers and families—but we will do so while respecting the principles and institutions that make us who we are as Americans.
Where regulatory actions are necessary, they will be accomplished in a thoughtful and careful manner. The Department seeks to achieve needed employee protections while limiting the burdens regulations place on employers.
Regulatory actions taken by the Department will provide American employers with certainty about workforce rules. The Department's regulatory plan will make employers' obligations under current law clear, while respecting the rule of law. Where Congress has not spoken, the Department will not intrude.
The proposals that follow are common-sense approaches in areas needing regulatory attention, presenting a balanced plan for protecting
Section 1 of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”, 82 FR 9339 (January 30, 2017) recognizes that “it is essential to manage costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal Regulations.” Consistent with the requirements of E.O. 13771, the Department's Regulatory Agenda includes 23 deregulatory items. The count of E.O. 13771 deregulatory regulations excludes non-rulemakings, such as guidance or information collections, that will not appear in the Agenda.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversees a wide range of standards that are designed to reduce occupational deaths, injuries, and illnesses. OSHA is committed to the establishment of clear, common-sense standards to help accomplish this. The OSHA items discussed below are deregulatory in nature, in that they reduce burden, while maintaining needed worker protections.
OSHA continues its work to protect workers from occupational exposures to Beryllium. Following the publication of a revised Beryllium standard in January 2017, OSHA received evidence that exposure in the shipyards and construction is limited to a few operations and has information suggesting that requiring the ancillary provisions broadly may not improve worker protection and be redundant with overlapping protections in other standards. Accordingly, OSHA is seeking comment on, among other things, whether existing standards covering abrasive blasting in construction, abrasive blasting in shipyards, and welding in shipyards provide adequate protection for workers engaged in these operations. The comment period on OSHA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on this subject ended on August 28, 2017. The agency will review the public comments and formulate its plan for next steps.
OSHA intends to issue a proposal to reconsider, revise, or remove provisions of the May 12, 2016, Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses final rule (81 FR 29624). OSHA reviewed the May 2016 final rule as part of its regulatory reform efforts and will propose changes intended to reduce unnecessary burdens while maintaining worker protections. The proposed rule will look at the electronic submission of injury and illness reports by employers. The preamble to the May 2016 final rule pointed to publication of the collected data as a method to improve workplace safety and health through the rule's requirements. OSHA stated its intention not to publish personally identifiable information (PII) included on Forms 300 and 301; OSHA Form 300A does not contain any PII. OSHA has now determined that it cannot guarantee the non-release of personally identifiable information. If OSHA were unable to publish the collected worker injury and illness data because it cannot guarantee the non-release of personally identifiable information, then the potential benefit of improved workplace safety and health through publication of the collected data would not be realized.
OSHA also continues work on its Standards Improvements Projects (SIPs), with the plan to finalize SIP IV next. These are intended to remove or revise duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent safety and health standards. OSHA published three earlier final standards to remove unnecessary provisions, thus reducing costs or paperwork burden on affected employers.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) administers federal job training and worker dislocation adjustment programs, federal grants to states for public employment service programs, and unemployment insurance benefits.
Consistent with Sec. 4 of the President's Executive Order on Expanding Apprenticeships in America, ETA will be proposing regulations to establish the framework for industry-recognized apprenticeship programs, a new industry-led initiative to promote innovation and opportunity in apprenticeship, and integrate this initiative with the existing Registered Apprenticeship system.
Finally, the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) administers numerous laws that establish the minimum standards for wages and working conditions in the United States. WHD will propose an updated salary level for the exemption of executive, administrative and professional employees for overtime purposes. In developing the NPRM, the Department will be informed by the comments received in response to its recently published Request for Information (RFI). The comment period on that RFI ended on September 25, 2017, and the agency is now in the process of reviewing these comments and formulating its NPRM.
L
DOT has statutory responsibility for a wide range of regulations. For example, DOT regulates safety in the aviation, motor carrier, railroad, motor vehicle, commercial space, transit, and pipeline transportation areas. The Department also regulates aviation consumer and economic issues, and provides financial assistance and writes the necessary implementing rules for programs involving highways, airports, mass transit, the maritime industry, railroads, and motor transportation and vehicle safety. Finally, DOT has responsibility for developing policies that implement a wide range of regulations that govern programs such as acquisition and grants management, access for people with disabilities, environmental protection, energy conservation, information technology, occupational safety and health, property asset management, seismic safety, security, and the use of aircraft and vehicles. The Department carries out its responsibilities through the Office of the Secretary (OST) and the following operating administrations (OAs): Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA); Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); Federal Transit Administration (FTA); Maritime Administration (MARAD); National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; (PHMSA); and St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC).
The Department's highest priority is safety. To achieve our safety goals responsibly and in accordance with principles of good governance, we embrace a regulatory philosophy that emphasizes transparency, stakeholder engagement, and regulatory restraint. Our goal is to allow the public to understand how we make decisions, which necessarily includes being transparent in the way we measure the risks, costs, and benefits of engaging in—or deciding not to engage in—a particular regulatory action. It is our policy to provide an opportunity for public comment on such actions to all interested stakeholders. Above all, transparency and meaningful engagement mandate that regulations should be straightforward, clear, and accessible to any interested stakeholder.
• At DOT, transparency and stakeholder engagement take a number of different forms. For example, we publish a monthly report on our website that provides a summary and the status for all significant rulemakings that DOT currently has pending or has issued recently (
• We also seek public input through direct engagement. For example, we recently published a request asking the public to help us identify obstacles to infrastructure projects,
The Department's regulatory philosophy also embraces the notion that there should be no more regulations than necessary. We emphasize consideration of non-regulatory solutions and have rigorous processes in place for continual reassessment of existing regulations. These processes provide that regulations and other agency actions are periodically reviewed and, if appropriate, are revised
For example, DOT regularly makes a conscientious effort to review its rules in accordance with the Department's 1979 Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, Feb. 26, 1979), Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Department follows a repeating 10-year plan for the review of existing regulations. Information on the results of these reviews is included in the Unified Agenda.
In addition, through three new Executive orders, President Trump directed agencies to further scrutinize their regulations and other agency actions. On January 30, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. Under Section 2(a) of the Executive order, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. Under this Executive order, each agency must establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF) to evaluate existing regulations, and make recommendations for their repeal, replacement, or modification. On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, requiring agencies to review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and other similar agency actions that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources.
In response to the mandate in Executive Order 13777, the Department formed an RRTF consisting of senior career and non-career leaders, which has already conducted extensive reviews of existing regulations, and identified a number of rules to be repealed, replaced, or modified. The RRTF continues to conduct monthly reviews across all OAs to identify appropriate deregulatory actions. The RRTF also works to ensure that any new regulatory action is rigorously vetted and non-regulatory alternatives are considered. Further information on the RRTF can be found online at:
Four fundamental principles—safety, innovation, enabling investment in infrastructure, and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens—are our top priorities. These priorities are grounded in our national interest in maintaining U.S. global leadership in safety, innovation, and economic growth. To accomplish our regulatory goals, we must create a regulatory environment that fosters growth in new and innovative industries without burdening them with unnecessary restrictions. At the same time, safety remains our highest priority; we must remain focused on managing safety risks and be sure that we do not regress from the successes already achieved. Accordingly, the regulatory plan laid out below reflects a careful balance that emphasizes the Department's priority in fostering innovation while at the same time meeting the challenges of maintaining a safe, reliable, and sustainable transportation system.
This Regulatory Plan identifies the 15 pending rulemakings that reflect the Department's commitment to safety, innovation, infrastructure, and reducing burdens. For example:
• FAA will focus on regulatory activity to enable, safely and efficiently, the integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS), and to enable expanded commercial space activities.
• NHTSA will focus on reducing regulatory barriers to technology innovation, including the development of autonomous vehicles, and improving regulations on fuel efficiency.
• FRA will focus on providing industry members regulatory relief through a rulemaking that allows for alternative compliance with FRA's Passenger Equipment Safety Standards for the operation of Tier III passenger equipment.
• FTA will focus on establishing Private Investment Project Procedures to encourage greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects, and continue to focus on its statutorily-mandated efforts to establish a comprehensive Public Transportation Safety Program to improve the safety of public transportation systems.
• PHMSA will focus on pipeline safety as well as the movement of hazardous materials across multiple modes of transportation.
OST oversees the regulatory process for the Department. OST implements the Department's regulatory policies and procedures and is responsible for ensuring the involvement of senior officials in regulatory decision making. Through the Office of the General Counsel, OST is also responsible for ensuring that the Department complies with the Administrative Procedure Act, Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs), Executive Order 13777 (Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda), Executive Order 13873 (Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth), DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and other legal and policy requirements affecting rulemaking. In addition, OST has the lead role in matters concerning aviation economic rules, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and rules that affect multiple elements of the Department.
OST provides guidance and training regarding compliance with regulatory requirements and process for personnel throughout the Department. OST also plays an instrumental role in the Department's efforts to improve our economic analyses; risk assessments; regulatory flexibility analyses; other related analyses; retrospective reviews of rules; and data quality, including peer reviews. The Office of the General Counsel is the lead office that works with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to get Administration approval to move forward with significant rules.
OST also leads and coordinates the Department's response to OMB's intergovernmental review of other agencies' significant rulemaking documents and to Administration and congressional proposals that concern the regulatory process. The Office of the General Counsel works closely with representatives of other agencies, OMB, the White House, and congressional staff to provide information on how various proposals would affect the ability of the Department to perform its safety, infrastructure, and other missions.
In Fiscal Year 2018, OST will continue its efforts to help coordinate the activities of several OAs that advance various departmental efforts that support the Administration's initiatives on promoting safety, enabling innovation, investing in infrastructure, and reducing regulatory burdens. OST will also continue to provide significant support to the RRTF's efforts to implement the Department's regulatory reform policies.
FAA is charged with safely and efficiently operating and maintaining the most complex aviation system in the world. Destination 2025, an FAA initiative that captures the agency's vision of transforming the Nation's aviation system by 2025, has proven to be an effective tool for pushing the agency to think about longer-term aspirations; FAA has established a vision that defines the agency's priorities for the next five years.
FAA has identified four major strategic initiatives where it will focus its efforts: (1) Risk-based Decision Making—Build on safety management principles to proactively address emerging safety risk by using consistent, data-informed approaches to make smarter, system-level, risk-based decisions; (2) NAS Initiative—Lay the foundation for the NAS of the future by achieving prioritized NextGen benefits, enabling the safe and efficient integration of new entrants (including UAS, supersonic aircraft, and commercial space flights) and deliver more efficient, streamlined air traffic management services; (3) Global Leadership—Improve safety, air traffic efficiency, and environmental sustainability across the globe through an integrated, data-driven approach that shapes global standards, enhances collaboration and harmonization, and better targets FAA resources and efforts; and (4) Workforce of the Future—Prepare FAA's human capital for the future, by identifying, recruiting, and training a workforce with the leadership, technical, and functional skills to ensure the U.S. has the world's safest and most productive aviation sector.
• During Fiscal Year 2018, FAA's regulatory priorities will be to enable transformative UAS and commercial space technologies by publishing two notices of proposed rulemaking (Small Unmanned Aircraft Over People, 2120-AK85 and Orbital Debris Mitigation Methods for Launch Vehicle Upper Stages, 2120-AK81), addressing the previously published Interim Final Rule on Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft (2120-AK82), and publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on UAS security-related issues (Safe and Secure Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, (2120-AL26). The Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Over People is the long-awaited next regulatory step towards integrating UAS into the NAS. This rule would allow certain routine small UAS operations over people without a waiver or exemption. The Orbital Debris Mitigation Methods for Launch Vehicle Upper Stages proposal would update current regulations to reduce the amount of orbital debris that could potentially interfere with existing or future activities in orbit.
• FAA's top deregulatory priorities will be to issue two final rules. Transport Airplane Fuel Tank and System Lightning Protection, (2120-AK24) would amend certain airworthiness regulations regarding lightning protection of fuel tanks and systems, providing cost savings to industry stakeholders. Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment View (2120-AK91) would revise the testing requirements for pilot compartment view to alleviate the cost of the flight test and reduce administrative burdens on affected applicants.
• Finally, FAA will focus on two rules responding to Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 requirements to address airline safety and pilot training improvements. The first would implement a statutory mandate to establishment an electronic pilot record database that air carriers would use for pre-employment checks on pilots (Pilot Records Database, 2120-AK31). The second rule would implement improvements to pilot training and professional development programs to address mentoring, leadership, and professional development of flight crewmembers (Professional Development, (2120-AJ87).
• More information about these rules can be found in the DOT Unified Agenda.
FHWA carries out the Federal highway program in partnership with State and local agencies to meet the Nation's transportation needs. FHWA's mission is to improve continually the quality and performance of our Nation's highway system and its intermodal connectors.
Consistent with this mission, in Fiscal Year 2018, the FHWA will continue with ongoing regulatory initiatives in support of its surface transportation programs. It will also work to implement legislation in the most cost-effective way possible. Finally, it will pursue regulatory reform in areas where
The mission of FMCSA is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving commercial trucks and buses. A strong regulatory program is a cornerstone of FMCSA's compliance and enforcement efforts to advance this safety mission. FMCSA develops new and more effective safety regulations based on three core priorities: Raising the safety bar for entry into the industry, maintaining high standards of safety performance, and removing high-risk behavior. In addition to Agency-directed regulations, FMCSA develops regulations mandated by Congress, through legislation such as the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Acts. FMCSA regulations establish minimum safety standards for motor carriers, commercial drivers, commercial motor vehicles, and State agencies receiving certain motor carrier safety grants and issuing commercial drivers' licenses.
FMCSA's regulatory efforts for FY 2018 will focus on efforts to streamline the grants program, remove regulatory burdens, and ease the transition into a transportation career for veterans. In addition, FMCSA will continue to coordinate efforts on the development of autonomous vehicle technologies and review existing regulations to identify changes that might be needed.
• The mission of NHTSA is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic costs due to roadway crashes. The statutory responsibilities of NHTSA relating to motor vehicles include reducing the number, and mitigating the effects of motor vehicle crashes and related fatalities and injuries; providing safety performance information to aid prospective purchasers of vehicles, child restraints, and tires; and improving automotive fuel efficiency. NHTSA pursues policies that enable safety technologies and encourage the development of non-regulatory approaches when feasible in meeting its statutory mandates. NHTSA issues new standards and regulations or amendments to existing standards and regulations when appropriate. It ensures that regulatory alternatives reflect a careful assessment of the problem and a comprehensive analysis of the benefits, costs, and other impacts associated with the proposed regulatory action. Finally, NHTSA considers alternatives consistent with principles in applicable executive orders.
NHTSA's regulatory priorities for FY 2018 include continuing to coordinate efforts on the development of autonomous vehicles and reducing regulatory barriers to technology innovation. NHTSA also plans to issue several rulemakings and other actions that increase safety and reduce economic burden, including some in response to statutory mandates. Most prominently, NHTSA anticipates issuing a request for comment on the barriers in existing regulation to deployment of automated vehicles, particularly those that affect vehicles that may have innovative designs. In addition, working with the Environmental Protection Agency, NHTSA plans to propose fuel efficiency standards for light vehicle model years (MYs) 2022 thru 2025 (Passenger Car and Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards MYs 2022-2025, RIN 2127-AL76). More information about these rules can be found in the DOT Unified Agenda.
FRA exercises regulatory authority over all areas of railroad safety and, where feasible, incorporates flexible performance standards. To foster an environment for collaborative rulemaking, FRA established the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). The purpose of RSAC is to develop consensus recommendations for regulatory action on issues FRA brings to it. Even in situations where RSAC consensus is not achieved, FRA benefits from receiving input from RSAC. In situations where RSAC participation would not be useful (
FRA's current regulatory program reflects a number of pending proceedings to satisfy mandates resulting from the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA08), the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), and the FAST Act, as well as actions under its general safety rulemaking authority, actions supporting a high-performing passenger rail network, and actions addressing the safe and effective movement of energy products.
FRA's regulatory priority for Fiscal Year 2018 will be to continue its work on a final rule containing RSAC-supported actions that advance high-performing passenger rail by providing alternative ways to comply with passenger rail equipment standards (Passenger Equipment Safety Standards for the operation of Tier III passenger equipment, RIN 2130-AC46). This rule is expected to ease regulatory burdens on certain passenger rail operations which would allow the development of advanced technology and increase safety benefits. More information about this rule can be found in the DOT Unified Agenda.
FTA provides financial and technical assistance to local public transit systems, including buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, trolleys and ferries. FTA also oversees safety measures and helps develop next-generation technology research. FTA's regulatory activities implement the laws that apply to recipients' uses of Federal funding and the terms and conditions of FTA grant awards.
In addition to the Department-wide goals described above, FTA policy regarding regulations is to:
• Ensure the safety of public transportation systems;
• Provide maximum benefit to the Nation's mobility through the connectivity of transportation infrastructure;
• Provide maximum local discretion;
• Ensure the most productive use of limited Federal resources;
• Protect taxpayer investments in public transportation; and
• Incorporate principles of sound management into the grant management process.
In 2012, through MAP-21, Congress expanded FTA's safety regulatory role by directing the Secretary to establish a comprehensive Public Transportation Safety Program to improve the safety of all public transportation systems that receive certain FTA funding. In December 2015, Congress passed the FAST Act, which reauthorized the PTSP and provided the Secretary with additional authority to ensure the safety of rail transit systems. This new authority requires implementation through the rulemaking process.
FTA's regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2018 are the Private Investment Project Procedures rulemaking (2132-AB27) and the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan final rule (2132-
MARAD administers Federal laws and programs to improve and strengthen the maritime transportation system to meet the economic, environmental, and security needs of the Nation. To that end, MARAD's efforts are focused upon ensuring a strong American presence in the domestic and international trades and to expanding maritime opportunities for American businesses and workers.
MARAD's regulatory objectives and priorities reflect the agency's responsibility for ensuring the availability of water transportation services for American shippers and consumers and, in times of war or national emergency, for the U.S. armed forces. Major program areas include the following: Maritime Security, Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement, National Defense Reserve Fleet and the Ready Reserve Force, Cargo Preference, Maritime Guaranteed Loan Financing, United States Merchant Marine Academy, Mariner Education and Training Support, Deepwater Port Licensing, and Port and Intermodal Development. Additionally, MARAD administers the Small Shipyard Grants Program through which equipment and technical skills training are provided to America's maritime workforce, with the aim of helping businesses to compete in the global marketplace while creating well-paying jobs at home.
MARAD's regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2018 will be to continue to support the objectives and priorities described above in addition to identifying new opportunities for deregulatory action.
PHMSA has responsibility for rulemaking under two programs. Through the Associate Administrator for the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS), PHMSA administers regulatory programs under Federal hazardous materials transportation law. Through the Associate Administrator for the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), PHMSA administers regulatory programs under the Federal pipeline safety laws. In addition, both offices administer programs under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
PHMSA will continue to work toward improving safety related to transportation of hazardous materials by all transportation modes, including pipeline, while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. PHMSA will concentrate on the prevention of high-risk incidents identified through PHMSA's evaluation of transportation incident data. PHMSA will use all available Agency tools to assess data; evaluate alternative safety strategies, including regulatory strategies as necessary and appropriate; target enforcement efforts; and enhance outreach, public education, and training to promote safety outcomes.
Further, PHMSA will continue to focus on streamlining its regulatory system and reducing regulatory burdens. PHMSA will evaluate existing rules to examine whether they remain justified; should be modified to account for changing circumstances and technologies; or should be streamlined or even repealed. PHMSA will continue to evaluate, analyze, and be responsive to petitions for rulemaking. PHMSA will review regulations, letters of interpretation, petitions for rulemaking, special permits, enforcement actions, approvals, international standards, and industry standards to identify inconsistencies, outdated provisions, and barriers to regulatory compliance.
In Fiscal Year 2018, OHMS will focus on two priority rules. The first is designed to reduce risks related to the transportation of hazardous materials by rail. PHMSA aims to finalize a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and Information Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains (2137-AF08), that sought comment on expanding the applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans for crude oil trains and require railroads to share information about high-hazard flammable train operations with State and tribal emergency response commissions to improve community preparedness. The second rule is designed to reduce the risk of transporting lithium batteries by air by addressing the unique challenges they pose (Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Safety Provisions for Lithium Batteries Transported by Aircraft, 2137-AF20).
OPS will focus on two pipeline rules. The first will finalize a proposal to change the regulations covering hazardous liquid onshore pipelines related to High Consequence Areas for integrity management protections, repair timeframes, and reporting for all hazardous liquid gathering lines (Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines, 2137-AE66). PHMSA also plans to seek public comment through an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that would provide regulatory relief to certain pipeline operators that experience a reduction in allowable operating pressure due to construction that has occurred in the area (Pipeline Safety: Class Location Requirements, 2137-AF29).
This rulemaking would amend the regulations for air carrier training programs under part 121. The action is necessary to ensure that air carriers establish or modify training programs to address mentoring, leadership and professional development of flight crewmembers in part 121 operations. This rulemaking is required by the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Act of 2010.
This rulemaking would establish design requirements for both normal conditions and possible failures of fuel tank structure and systems that could lead to fuel tank explosions, adding new maintenance requirements related to lightning protection features, and imposing specific requirements for airworthiness limitations in the instructions for continued airworthiness.
The primary missions of the Department of the Treasury are:
• To promote prosperous and stable American and world economies, including promoting domestic economic growth and maintaining our Nation's leadership in global economic issues, supervising national banks and thrift institutions, and helping to bring residents of distressed communities into the economic mainstream.
• To manage the Government's finances by protecting the revenue and collecting the correct amount of revenue under the Internal Revenue Code, overseeing customs revenue policies, financing the Federal Government and managing its fiscal operations, and producing our Nation's coins and currency.
• To safeguard the U.S. and international financial systems from those who would use these systems for illegal purposes or to compromise U.S. national security interests, while keeping them free and open to legitimate users.
Consistent with these missions, most regulations of the Department and its constituent bureaus are promulgated to interpret and implement the laws as enacted by Congress and signed by the President. It is the policy of the Department to comply with applicable requirements to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking and carefully consider public comments before adopting a final rule. Also, the Department invites interested parties to submit views on rulemaking projects while a proposed rule is being developed.
To the extent permitted by law, it is the policy of the Department to adhere to the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13609, and 13771 and to develop regulations that maximize aggregate net benefits to society while minimizing the economic and paperwork burdens imposed on persons and businesses subject to those regulations.
Treasury is still in the process of evaluating its deregulatory and regulatory actions for FY 2018. At this time, Treasury anticipates possibly up to 25 deregulatory actions, and 2 regulatory actions. Further information about these actions can be found in this Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issues regulations to implement and enforce Federal laws relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition excise taxes and certain non-tax laws relating to alcohol. TTB's mission and regulations are designed to:
(1) Collect the taxes on alcohol, tobacco products, firearms, and ammunition;
(2) Protect the consumer by ensuring the integrity of alcohol products; and
(3) Prevent unfair and unlawful market activity for alcohol and tobacco products.
As part of TTB's ongoing efforts to modernize its regulations, TTB continuously seeks to identify changes in the industries it regulates, as well as new technologies available in compliance enforcement. TTB's modernization efforts focus on removing outdated requirements and revising regulations to facilitate industry growth and reduce burdens where possible. At the same time, TTB must ensure that it collects the revenue due and protects consumers from deceptive labeling and advertising of alcohol beverages.
In FY 2018, TTB will continue its multi-year Regulations Modernization effort by prioritizing projects that reduce regulatory burdens, provide greater industry flexibility, and streamline the regulatory system, consistent with Executive Orders 13771 and 13777. TTB rulemaking priorities also include proposing regulatory changes in response to petitions from industry members and other interested parties, and requesting comments on ways TTB may further reduce burden and support a level playing field for the regulated industry. Specifically, during the fiscal year, TTB plans to publish a deregulatory final rule, following a notice published in FY 2017, which reduces the number of reports submitted by certain regulated industry members. TTB also plans to publish for public comment proposed deregulatory changes to reduce the information it requires in connection with permit applications and to expand industry flexibility with regard to alcohol beverage container sizes (standards of fill). Some changes will require amending regulations and others will require only changes to the information collected on forms. Priority projects also include continuing the rulemaking issued in FY 2017 in response to industry member petitions to authorize new wine treating materials and processes, new grape varietal names for use on labels of wine, and new American Viticultural Areas (AVAs). None of the TTB rulemaking documents issued in FY 2018 are expected to be “regulatory actions” as described in Executive Order 13771.
This fiscal year TTB plans to give priority to the following deregulatory and regulatory measures:
•
Consistent with E.O. 13771 and 13777, in FY 2017, TTB engaged in a review of its regulations to identify any regulatory requirements that could potentially be eliminated, modified, or streamlined in order to reduce burdens on industry. Through four notices of proposed rulemaking, TTB intends to propose eliminating or streamlining various information requirements for application or qualification of distilled spirits plants, wineries, breweries, and manufacturers of tobacco products or processed tobacco. In addition, TTB continues to review comments it receives from the interested public, including industry members, through the Treasury Department's Request for Information on deregulatory ideas (Docket No. TREAS-DO-2017-0012, published in the
•
In these two notices, TTB will address petitions requesting that it amend regulations governing wine and distilled spirits containers to provide for additional authorized “standards of fill.” (The term “standard of fill” generally relates to the size of containers, although the specific regulatory meaning is the authorized amount of liquid in the container, rather than the size or capacity of the container itself.) Rather than proposing the addition of new authorized sizes, however, TTB will propose to eliminate all but minimum and maximum standards of fill for distilled spirits containers, and all but a minimum standard of fill for wine containers. If implemented, this proposal would provide industry members greater flexibility in producing and sourcing containers and consumers broader purchasing options. This deregulatory action would also eliminate restrictions that inhibit competition and the movement of goods in domestic and international commerce, in addition to providing new opportunities for meeting consumer demand.
•
On December 18, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act (PATH Act), which is Division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016. The PATH Act contains changes to certain statutory provisions that TTB administers in the Internal Revenue Code regarding excise tax return due dates and bond requirements for certain smaller excise taxpayers. These amendments took effect beginning in January 2017, and TTB published a temporary rule amending its regulations to implement these provisions. At the same time, TTB published in the
•
The Federal Alcohol Administration Act requires that alcohol beverages introduced in interstate commerce have a label issued and approved under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. In accordance with the mandate of Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011, regarding improving regulation and regulatory review, TTB conducted an analysis of its alcohol beverage labeling regulations to identify any that might be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with that analysis. These regulations were also reviewed to assess their applicability to the modern alcohol beverage
In FY 2018, TTB intends to bring to completion a number of rulemaking projects published as notices of proposed rulemaking in FY 2017 in response to industry member petitions to amend the TTB regulations:
•
In FY 2017, TTB proposed to amend its regulations pertaining to the production of wine to authorize additional treatments that may be applied to wine and to juice from which wine is made. These proposed amendments were made in response to requests from wine industry members to authorize certain wine treating materials and processes not currently authorized by TTB regulations. Although TTB may administratively approve such treatments, rulemaking may serve several purposes, including acceptance of exported wine made using those treatments in foreign markets. Administrative approval of a wine treatment does not guarantee acceptance in foreign markets of any wine so treated, and conducting rulemaking and adding wine treating materials and processes to TTB regulations through notice and comment rulemaking results in acceptance of the treated wines in certain foreign jurisdictions. TTB intends to reopen the comment period for the FY 2017 notice, as requested by industry members and, after consideration of the comments, issue a final rule.
•
In FY 2017, TTB proposed to amend its wine labeling regulations by adding a number of new names to the list of grape variety names approved for use in designating American wines. The proposed deregulatory amendments would allow wine bottlers to use these additional approved grape variety names on wine labels and in wine advertisements. TTB intends to reopen the comment period for the FY 2017 notice, as requested by industry members and, after consideration of the comments, issue a final rule.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the Act) provides that, although many functions of the former United States Customs Service were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury retains sole legal authority over customs revenue functions. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to delegate any of the retained authority over customs revenue functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security. By Treasury Department Order No. 100-16, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to prescribe regulations pertaining to the customs revenue functions subject to certain exceptions, but further provided that the Secretary of the Treasury retained the sole authority to approve such regulations.
During fiscal year 2018, CBP and Treasury plan to give priority to regulatory matters involving the customs revenue functions which streamline CBP procedures, protect the public, or are required by either statute or Executive Order. The examples of these efforts described below are exempt from Executive Order 13771 as they are non-significant rules as defined by Executive Order. Examples of these efforts are described below.
•
Treasury and CBP plan to finalize interim regulations (81 FR 56477) which amended CBP regulations implementing section 421 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, which set forth procedures to investigate claims of evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty orders.
•
Treasury and CBP plan to amend CBP regulations to implement changes to the drawback law contained in section 906 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. These proposed changes to the regulations will liberalize the standard for substituting merchandise, simplify recordkeeping requirements, extend and standardize timelines for filing drawback claims, and require the electronic filing of drawback claims.
•
Treasury and CBP plan to propose amendments to the CBP regulations pertaining to importations of merchandise that violate or are suspected of violating the copyright laws, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), in accordance with Title III of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA) and Executive Order 13785 “Establishing Enhanced Collection and Enforcement of Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties and Violations of Trade and Customs Laws.” The proposed amendments are intended to enhance CBP's enforcement efforts against increasingly sophisticated piratical goods, clarify the definition of piracy, simplify the detention process relative to goods suspected of violating the copyright laws, and prescribe new regulations enforcing the DMCA.
•
Treasury and CBP plans to publish a proposal to amend its regulations with respect to administrative rulings related to the importation of articles in light of exclusion orders issued by the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The proposed amendments seek to promote the speed, accuracy, and transparency of such rulings through the creation of an
As administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is responsible for developing and implementing regulations that are the core of the Department's anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing efforts. FinCEN's responsibilities and objectives are linked to, and flow from, that role. In fulfilling this role, FinCEN seeks to enhance U.S. national security by making the financial system increasingly resistant to abuse by money launderers, terrorists and their financial supporters, and other perpetrators of crime.
The Secretary of the Treasury, through FinCEN, is authorized by the BSA to issue regulations requiring financial institutions to file reports and keep records that are determined to
These objectives and priorities include: (1) Issuing, interpreting, and enforcing compliance with regulations implementing the BSA; (2) supporting, working with, and as appropriate, overseeing compliance examination functions delegated to other Federal regulators; (3) managing the collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of data related to the BSA; (4) maintaining a government-wide access service to that same data and for network users with overlapping interests; (5) conducting analysis in support of policymakers, law enforcement, regulatory and intelligence agencies, and the financial sector; and (6) coordinating with and collaborating on anti-terrorism and AML initiatives with domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies, as well as foreign financial intelligence units.
FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2018, include:
•
On May 11, 2016, FinCEN issued Final Rules under the BSA to clarify and strengthen customer due diligence requirements for banks, brokers or dealers in securities, mutual funds, and futures commission merchants and introducing brokers in commodities. The rules contain explicit customer due diligence requirements and include a new regulatory requirement to identify beneficial owners of legal entity customers, subject to certain exemptions. The section of the rule detailing the training requirements for mutual funds was inadvertently omitted from the final rule. This technical amendment will rectify the inadvertent omission and will update several references and terminology.
•
On March 10, 2016, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to address requests from filers for clarification of certain requirements regarding the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, including requirements with respect to employees, who have signature authority over, but no financial interest in, the foreign financial accounts of their employers.
•
On April 4, 2016, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing amendments to the regulatory definitions of broker or dealer in securities under the BSA's regulations. The proposed changes would expand the current scope of the definitions to include funding portals and would require them to implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with all of the BSA's requirements that are currently applicable to brokers or dealers in securities.
•
On August 25, 2016, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to remove the AML program exemption for banks that lack a Federal functional regulator, including, but not limited to, private banks, non-federally insured credit unions, and certain trust companies. The proposed rule would prescribe minimum standards for AML programs and would ensure that all banks, regardless of whether they are subject to Federal regulation and oversight, are required to establish and implement AML programs.
•
On August 25, 2015, FinCEN published in the
•
FinCEN is considering issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking amending the registration requirements for money services businesses.
•
FinCEN is considering regulatory changes that would require financial institutions to collect and maintain more information regarding funds transfers and transmittals of funds, as well as lower the existing recordkeeping threshold.
•
FinCEN will research, obtain, and analyze relevant data to validate the need for changes aimed at updating and improving the CMIR and ancillary reporting requirements. Possible areas of study to be examined could include current trends in cash transportation across international borders, transparency levels of physical transportation of currency, the feasibility of harmonizing data fields with bordering countries, and information derived from FinCEN's experience with Geographic Targeting Orders.
•
FinCEN also will continue to issue proposed and final rules pursuant to section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, as appropriate. Finally, FinCEN expects that it may propose various technical and other regulatory amendments in conjunction with ongoing efforts with respect to a comprehensive review of existing regulations to enhance regulatory efficiency.
The Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) administers regulations pertaining to the Government's financial activities, including: (1) Implementing Treasury's borrowing authority, including regulating the sale and issue of Treasury securities; (2) administering Government revenue and debt collection; (3) administering Government wide accounting programs; (4) managing certain Federal investments; (5) disbursing the majority of Government electronic and check payments; (6) assisting Federal agencies in reducing the number of improper payments; and (7) providing administrative and operational support to Federal agencies through franchise shared services.
During fiscal year 2018, the Fiscal Service will accord priority to the following regulatory projects:
•
On December 30, 2015, the Fiscal Service published an Interim Final Rule, with request for comments, limiting the time period during which Treasury may recover certain tax refund offset collections from States to six months from the date of such collection. Previously, there was no time limit to recoup offset amounts that were collected from tax refunds to which the
•
The Fiscal Service plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend 31 CFR part 206 governing the collection of public money, along with a request for public comments. This notice will propose implementing statutory authority which mandates that some or all nontax payments made to the Government, and accompanying remittance information, be submitted electronically. Receipt of such items electronically offers significant efficiencies and cost-savings to the government, compared to the receipt of cash, check or money order payments.
•
The Fiscal Service plans to amend the savings bond payment regulations in 31 CFR part 321 to formally add an option for paying agent financial institutions to digitally stamp payment information on paid bond images, instead of physically stamping the information on the original paid bonds. This change will not impose any new burden on banks or customers, and will align the regulation with current practice that has been implemented under waiver authority. The Fiscal Service also plans to amend the paper savings bond regulations to eliminate the current conversion and reissue transactions, which are expensive to process.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and Federal savings associations (FSAs). The agency also supervises the Federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC's mission is to ensure that national banks and FSAs operate in a safe and sound manner, provide fair access to financial services, treat customers fairly, and comply with applicable laws and regulations.
Regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2018 include the following regulatory actions:
•
The banking agencies
•
The banking agencies plan to issue a final rule addressing comments received through the process of regulatory review required by the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 Amendments (EGRPRA), concerning the regulatory burden associated with appraisals. The rulemaking would expand the current exemption in the interagency rules for appraisals of commercial properties by increasing the appraisal threshold in 12 CFR part 34 (and in the corresponding regulations of the FDIC and FRB), which is currently set at $250,000. The proposed rule was published on July 31, 2017, 82 FR 35478.
•
The OCC and FDIC plan to issue a final rule to shorten the standard settlement cycle for certain securities purchased or sold by national banks, federal savings associations, and FDIC-supervised institutions. The proposed rule was published on September 11, 2017, 82 FR 42619.
•
The banking agencies, the Farm Credit Administration (FCA), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) plan to issue a final rule to amend their regulations regarding loans in areas having special flood hazards to implement the private flood insurance provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. The proposed rule was published on November 7, 2016, 81 FR 78063.
•
The banking agencies plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth enhanced cyber risk management standards for the largest and most interconnected financial organizations in the United States. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published on October 26, 2016, 81 FR 74315.
•
Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203, July 21, 2010) (Dodd-Frank Act) requires the banking agencies, NCUA, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to jointly prescribe regulations or guidance prohibiting any type of incentive-based payment arrangement, or any feature of any such arrangement, that the regulators determine encourages inappropriate risks by covered financial institutions by providing an executive officer, employee, director, or principal shareholder with excessive compensation, fees, or benefits, or that could lead to material financial loss to the covered financial institution. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires such agencies jointly to prescribe regulations or guidelines requiring each covered financial institution to disclose to its regulator the structure of all incentive-based compensation arrangements offered by such institution sufficient to determine whether the compensation structure provides any executive officer, employee, director, or principal shareholder with excessive compensation or could lead to material financial loss to the institution. The proposed rule was published on June 10, 2016, 81 FR 37669.
•
The OCC plans to issue a final rule that mitigates potential negative impacts that could result from the disorderly resolution of certain systemically important national banks, Federal savings associations, Federal branches
•
The banking agencies plan to issue a final rule to implement the Basel net stable funding ratio standards. These standards would require large, internationally active banking organizations to maintain sufficient stable funding to support their assets, generally over a one-year time horizon. The proposed rule was published on June 1, 2016, 81 FR 35123.
•
The OCC plans to finalize its interim final rule to amend the definition of “qualifying master netting agreement” under its regulatory capital and liquidity coverage ratio rule, as well as under its lending limits rule applicable to national banks and FSAs. The interim final rule was published on December 30, 2014, 79 FR 78287.
•
The banking agencies issued a final rule to amend the home mortgage loan and consumer loan definitions in their regulations implementing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to conform to recent changes made by the CFPB to Regulation C, which implements the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) and make some additional technical revisions. The proposed rule was published on September 20, 2017, 82 FR 43910. The final rule was issued on November 24, 2017, 82 FR 55734.
•
In light of the 2017 Treasury Report, the OCC expects to issue a proposed rule to amend certain provisions of part 44.
•
The OCC plans to issue a direct final rule, through joint action with the FRB and FDIC that would amend agency regulations interpreting the Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act (DIMIA) to increase the asset thresholds based on inflation or market changes. The current asset thresholds are set at $2.5 billion and $1.5 billion.
•
The banking agencies plan to issue an interim final rule to clarify the applicability of recent amendments to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) customer due diligence rules to the depository institutions under their supervision. FinCEN expanded its customer due diligence requirements for covered financial institutions, including banks, brokers or dealers in securities, mutual funds, and futures commission merchants and introducing brokers in commodities (FinCEN Rule). As part of that rulemaking, FinCEN amended the elements of the anti-money laundering program financial institutions must implement and maintain in order satisfy program requirements under 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(1) and the agencies are amending their anti-money laundering program rules to reference requirements in the FinCEN Rule.
•
The banking agencies issued a proposed rule to simplify the generally applicable capital framework with the goal of meaningfully reducing regulatory burden on community banking organizations while at the same time maintaining safety and soundness and the quality and quantity of regulatory capital in the banking system. The proposed rule was issued on October 27, 2017, 82 FR 49984.
•
The banking agencies, NCUA, FHFA, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), in consultation with the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) and the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation, are required to promulgate regulations addressing quality-control standards required under the statute. Section 1473(q) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires that automated valuation models used to estimate collateral value in connection with mortgage origination and securitization activity, comply with quality-control standards designed to ensure a high level of confidence in the estimates produced by automated valuation models; protect against manipulation of data; seek to avoid conflicts of interest; require random sample testing and reviews; and account for other factors the agencies deem appropriate. The agencies plan to issue a proposed rule to implement the requirement to adopt quality-control standards.
•
The banking agencies plan to issue a proposed rule to implement section 616(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 616(d) requires that bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, and other companies that directly or indirectly control an insured depository institution serve as a source of strength for the insured depository institution. The appropriate federal banking agency for the insured depository institution may require that the company submit a report that would assess the company's ability to comply with the provisions of the statute and its compliance.
•
The OCC plans to issue a proposed rule to remove the requirement that the board of directors of an FSA approve employment contracts with all employees and limit the approval requirement only to contracts with senior executives.
•
The OCC plans to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth key issues to be addressed prior to the development of a framework for receiverships of uninsured federal branches and agencies.
During Fiscal Year 2018, the IRS and Treasury's Office of Tax Policy have the following regulatory priorities. The first priority is to implement, consistent with law, actions recommended in the Second Report pursuant to Executive Order 13789 to eliminate, or in other cases reduce, the burdens imposed on taxpayers by eight regulations that the Treasury has identified for review under Executive Order 13789. These deregulatory actions include:
1. Withdrawal of proposed regulations under section 2704 regarding restrictions on liquidation of an interest for estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer taxes. Proposed regulations were published on August 4, 2016.
2. Withdrawal of proposed regulations under section 103 regarding the definition of political subdivision. Proposed regulations were published on February 23, 2016.
3. Proposed amendment of regulations under section 7602 regarding the participation of attorneys described in section 6103(n) in a summons interview. Final regulations were published on July 14, 2016.
4. Proposed removal of temporary regulations under section 707 concerning treatment of liabilities for disguised sale purposes and review of
5. Delay and proposed removal of documentation regulations under section 385 and review of other regulations under section 385. Final, temporary, and proposed regulations were published on October 21, 2016.
6. Proposed modification of regulations under section 367 regarding the treatment of certain transfers of property to foreign corporations. Final regulations were published on December 16, 2016.
7. Proposed modification of regulations under section 337(d) regarding certain transfers of property to regulated investment companies (RICs) and real estate investment trusts (REITs). Temporary and proposed regulations were published on June 8, 2016.
8. Proposed modification of regulations under section 987 on income and currency gain or loss with respect to a section 987 qualified business unit. Final regulations were published on December 8, 2016.
The second priority is, in furtherance of the policies stated in Executive Order 13789, Executive Order 13771, and Executive Order 13777, to undertake a comprehensive review, coordinated by the Treasury Regulatory Reform Task Force, of all tax regulations, regardless of when they were issued. This review will identify tax regulations that are unnecessary, create undue complexity, impose excessive burdens, or fail to provide clarity and useful guidance, and Treasury and the IRS will pursue, consistent with law, reform or revocation of those regulations. Included in the review are longstanding temporary or proposed regulations that have not expired or been finalized. As part of the process coordinated by the Treasury Regulatory Reform Task Force, the IRS Office of Chief Counsel has already identified over 300 regulations for potential revocation. These regulations remain in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) but are, to varying degrees, unnecessary, duplicative, or outdated, and force taxpayers to navigate unnecessarily complex or even confusing rules. Treasury and the IRS expect to begin the process of proposing to address these regulations in the fourth quarter of 2017. Treasury and the IRS are also seeking to streamline rules where possible and to repeal or revise regulations that have been superseded by statute or case law.
The IRS and Treasury are also prioritizing implementation of the President's Executive Order 13813, Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States. The Executive Order, among other things, directs Treasury and the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services to consider proposing or revising regulations or guidance to expand the availability of short-term, limited-duration insurance and consider proposing or revising regulations or guidance to increase the usability of health reimbursement arrangements.
An additional priority for the IRS is to publish final regulations under section 1101 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) that are necessary to implement the new centralized partnership audit regime enacted in November 2015. Section 1101(g)(1) of the BBA provides that the new regime is generally effective for partnership tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.
Finally, Treasury and the IRS anticipate the need to undertake numerous regulatory actions to implement any new legislation enacted in the coming year, including the Administration's current Tax Reform efforts.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers benefit programs that recognize the important public obligations to those who served this Nation. VA's regulatory responsibility is almost solely confined to carrying out mandates of the laws enacted by Congress relating to programs for veterans and their families. VA's major regulatory objective is to implement these laws with fairness, justice, and efficiency.
Most of the regulations issued by VA involve at least one of three VA components: The Veterans Benefits Administration, the Veterans Health Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. The primary mission of the Veterans Benefits Administration is to provide high-quality and timely nonmedical benefits to eligible veterans and their dependents. The primary mission of the Veterans Health Administration is to provide high-quality health care on a timely basis to eligible veterans through its system of medical centers, nursing homes, domiciliaries, and outpatient medical and dental facilities. The primary mission of the National Cemetery Administration is to bury eligible veterans, members of the Reserve components, and their dependents in VA National Cemeteries and to maintain those cemeteries as national shrines in perpetuity as a final tribute of a grateful Nation to commemorate their service and sacrifice to our Nation.
VA's most recent report on its retrospective review of regulations can be found at:
There are no new collections of information associated with this rulemaking. However, there is a proposed discontinuance of use of VA Form 10-2520, which is part of an existing collection under 2900-0188. The estimated burden elimination is 47 annual hours, which results in an information collection costs savings to the public (vendor) in the amount of $1,121.42.
Although this action contains provisions constituting collections of information at 48 CFR 814.201-6(a) and 852.214-70, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 to 3521), no new or proposed revised collections of information are associated with this rule.
The information collection requirements for 48 CFR 814.201-6(a) and 852.214-70 are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), have been assigned OMB control number 2900-0593, and are being proposed for removal and discontinuance. This will remove the annual burden of 2 hours on the estimated 640 respondents annually and have an information collection burden savings of $50.66.
In
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the laws enacted by Congress and signed by the President to protect people's health and the environment. In carrying out these statutory mandates, the EPA works to ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work; that national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information; that Federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively; that environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy; that all parts of society—communities, individuals, businesses, and State, local and tribal governments—have access to
To accomplish its goals in the coming year, the EPA will use regulatory authorities, along with grant- and incentive-based programs, technical and compliance assistance and tools, and research and educational initiatives to address its statutory responsibilities. All of this work will be undertaken with a strong commitment to science, law and transparency.
EPA's more than forty years of protecting public health and the environment demonstrates our nation's commitment to reducing pollution that can threaten the air we breathe, the water we use, and the communities we live in. This Regulatory Plan contains information on some of our most important upcoming regulatory and deregulatory actions. As always, our Semiannual Regulatory Agenda contains information on a broader spectrum of EPA's upcoming regulatory actions.
The Agency will continue to deploy existing regulatory tools where appropriate and warranted. Using the Clean Air Act, EPA will work with States to accurately measure air quality and ensure that more Americans are living and working in areas that meet air quality standards. EPA will continue to develop standards, as directed by the Clean Air Act, for both mobile and stationary sources, to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, toxics, and other pollutants.
Under the 2012 joint rulemaking regulations, no later than April 1, 2018, the EPA Administrator must determine whether the GHG standards established under the 2012 joint rule for MY 2022-2025 are appropriate under CAA section 202(a) in light of the record then before the Administrator. Given that CO2 makes up the vast majority of the GHGs that the EPA regulates under section 202(a), and given that the technologies available for regulating CO2 emissions do so by improving fuel economy (which NHTSA regulates under EPCA), NHTSA's views regarding their CAFE standards is an appropriate consideration in EPA's determination regarding what GHG standards would be appropriate under the CAA.
In accordance with the schedule set forth in the EPA's regulations, the EPA intends to make a Final Determination regarding the appropriateness of the MY 2022-2025 GHG standards no later than April 1, 2018. As a part of this process, the EPA is examining a wide range of factors, such as developments in powertrain technology, vehicle electrification, light-weighting and vehicle safety impacts, the penetration of fuel efficient technologies in the marketplace, consumer acceptance of fuel efficient technologies, trends in fuel prices and the vehicle fleet, employment impacts, and many others.
CAA title V requires major sources of air pollutants, and certain other sources, to obtain and operate in compliance with an operating permit. Sources with these “title V permits” are required by the CAA to certify compliance with the applicable requirements of their permits at least annually. Regulations governing the Title V program are found at 40 CFR part 70—State Operating Permit Programs.
To improve program effectiveness and reduce compliance burden, the EPA will examine permitting programs reforms, such as the timely issuance of permits, the facilitation of flexibility in permitting in a nationally consistent manner (including but not limited to plant-wide applicability limits (PALs) and alternative operating scenarios), and the simplification of CAA permitting requirements by evaluating and
The EPA plans to complete the following actions: GHG Significant Emission Rate rulemaking, which will provide a significance threshold for GHG emissions to determine when a best available control technology (BACT) analysis is required; improve the technical tools used to streamline air quality modeling by issuing final PM
On October 1, 2015, the EPA signed a notice of final rulemaking that revised the 8-hour primary and secondary Ozone NAAQS. The primary standard was lowered from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to a level of 0.070 ppm. The EPA also revised the secondary standard by making it identical in all respects to the revised primary standard.
Subsequently, stakeholders have recommended that the EPA further revise the exceptional event rule and associated guidance to allow for greater state flexibility in flagging and excluding exceptional events in the data set used to determine compliance with the NAAQS. Exceptional events are unusual or naturally occurring events that can affect air quality but are not reasonably controllable using techniques that tribal, State, or local air agencies may implement in order to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Exceptional events include wildfires, stratospheric ozone intrusions, and volcanic and seismic activities. In September 2016, the EPA finalized revisions to the Exceptional Events rule to establish criteria and procedures for use in determining exceptional events influenced air quality monitoring data.
In addition, the EPA intends to finalize necessary guidance (
Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act and the Safer Drinking Water Act, tremendous progress has been made toward ensuring that Americans have safe water to drink and generally improving the quality of the Nation's waters. While progress has been made, numerous challenges remain in such areas as nutrient loadings, storm water runoff, invasive species and drinking water contaminants. These challenges can only be addressed by working with our State and tribal partners to develop new and innovative strategies in addition to the more traditional regulatory approaches. EPA plans to address the following challenging issues in rulemakings.
The EPA and the Department of the Army have promulgated a series of regulations defining “waters of the United States.” The scope of “waters of the United States” as defined by prior regulations has been subject to litigation in several U.S. Supreme Court cases, most recently in its 2006
On July 27, 2017, the EPA and the Army issued a proposed rulemaking to repeal the 2015 WOTUS rule and reinstate the regulations in place prior to its issuance. As indicated in the proposed withdrawal, the agencies are implementing clarifying changes in two steps to provide as much certainty as possible as quickly as possible to the regulated community and the public during the development of the ultimate replacement rule. In Step 1, the agencies are seeking to establish the legal status quo in the Code of Federal Regulations, by recodifying the regulation that was in place prior to issuance of the 2015 WOTUS Rule. Currently, these prior regulations are being implemented under the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's stay of the 2015 rule. In step 2, the agencies plan to propose a new definition that would replace the prior regulations and the approach in the 2015 Clean Water Rule. In determining the possible new approaches, EPA and the Corps of Engineers are considering a definition for “navigable water” in a manner consistent with the plurality opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in the
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category. On November 3, 2015, under the authority of the CWA, the EPA issued a final rule amending the Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. The Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) reduces risks to drinking water consumers from lead and copper that can enter drinking water as a result of corrosion of plumbing materials. The LCR requires water systems to sample at taps in homes with leaded plumbing materials. Depending upon the sampling results, water systems must take actions to reduce exposure to lead and copper including corrosion control treatment, public education, and lead service line replacement. The LCR was promulgated in 1991 and, overall, has been effective in reducing the levels of lead and copper in drinking water systems across the country. However, lead crises in Washington, DC, and in Flint, Michigan, and the subsequent national attention focused on lead in drinking water in other communities have underscored significant challenges in the implementation of the current rule, including a rule structure that, for many systems, only compels protective actions after public health threats have been identified. Key challenges include the rule's complexity; the degree of flexibility and discretion it affords systems and primacy states with regard to optimization of corrosion control treatment; compliance sampling practices, which in some cases, may not adequately protect from lead exposure; and limited specific focus on key areas of concern such as schools. There is a compelling need to modernize and strengthen implementation of the rule—to strengthen its public health protections and to clarify its implementation requirements to make it more effective and more readily enforceable. EPA is evaluating the costs and benefits of the potential revisions and assessing whether the benefits justify the costs.
EPA's regulatory program recognizes the progress in environmental protection and incorporates new technologies and approaches that allow us to provide for an environmentally sustainable future more efficiently and effectively.
The 2015 CCR Rule does not make a final Bevill regulatory determination as to whether CCRs warrant regulation as a hazardous waste under subtitle C of RCRA, but instead defers a final regulatory determination until the EPA has more information on specific matters influencing the risks posed by CCRs.
Subsequent to the promulgation of the 2015 CCR Rule, various environmental and industry groups submitted to the DC Circuit seven separate petitions for review, which were consolidated into a single action. On June 16, 2016, in response to the EPA's unopposed motion for voluntary remand of certain issues, the DC Circuit issued an order remanding with vacatur to the EPA specific provisions of the rule for further consideration, and remanding without vacatur other issues. The EPA will consider the provisions remanded by the DC Circuit, as well as the issues raised in the 2017 petition and other implementation issues subsequently raised by stakeholders.
Reconsideration of the Accidental Release Prevention Regulations Under Clean Air Act. Both EPA and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) issued regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, in response to a number of catastrophic chemical accidents occurring worldwide that had resulted in public and worker fatalities and injuries, environmental damage, and other community impacts. OSHA published the Process Safety Management (PSM) standard (29 CFR part 1910.119) in 1992. EPA modeled the Risk Management Program (RMP) regulation after OSHA's PSM standard and published the RMP rule in two stages—a list of regulated substances and threshold quantities in 1994; and the RMP final regulation, containing risk management requirements, in 1996. Both the OSHA PSM standard and the EPA RMP regulation aim to prevent, or minimize the consequences of, accidental chemical releases to workers and the community.
On January 13, 2017, the EPA amended the RMP regulations in order to (1) reduce the likelihood and severity of accidental releases, (2) improve emergency response when those releases occur, and (3) enhance State and local emergency preparedness and response in an effort to mitigate the effects of accidents.
Having considered the objections to the RMP Amendments rule raised in various petitions, the EPA subsequently delayed the effective date of the RMP Amendments rule to February 19, 2019, in order to give the EPA time to reconsider the rule. Prior to the rule becoming effective, the EPA plans to take comment on specific issues to be reconsidered and consider possible regulatory actions to revise the RMP amendments.
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities: Remand Rule. The EPA is planning to modify the final rule on the disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) as solid waste under subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act issued on April 17, 2015 (80 FR 21302). As a result of a settlement agreement on this final rule,
Clean Water Act Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention. As a result of a consent decree, the EPA is pursuing a rulemaking for the prevention of hazardous substance discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA hazardous substances and their associated reportable quantities (RQs) are identified in 40 CFR parts 116 and 117, respectively. The EPA will assess the consequences of hazardous substance discharges into the Nation's waters, and evaluate the costs and benefits of potential preventive regulatory requirements for facilities handling such substances.
EPA acts under several different statutory authorities, including the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know-Act (EPCRA), and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) to protect individuals, families, and the environment from potential risks of pesticides and other chemicals. Using sound science as a compass, the Agency will continue to satisfy its overall directives under these authorities and highlights the following efforts underway in FY 2018:
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act Implementation. Enacted on June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act amended TSCA with immediate effect. The Agency is working aggressively to carry out the requirements of the new law. Among other things, EPA is now required to evaluate existing chemicals purely on the basis of the health risks they pose—including risks to vulnerable groups and to workers who may use chemicals daily as part of their jobs. If unreasonable risks are found, EPA must then take steps to eliminate these risks. In June 2017, EPA released scope documents for the initial ten chemicals for risk evaluation under the amended law. These documents identify what uses of the chemicals will be evaluated and how the risk evaluation will be conducted. In FY 2018, EPA will publish and take public comment on Problem Formulation documents which will refine the current scope of the risk evaluations prior to publication the draft risk evaluations in FY 2019.
EPA is also now required to systematically prioritize and evaluate chemicals on a specific and enforceable schedule. Within a few years, EPA's chemicals program will have to assess at least 20 chemicals at a time, beginning another chemical review as soon as one is completed. In June 2017, EPA promulgated final framework regulations addressing the procedures that EPA will employ to prioritize chemicals under TSCA for risk evaluation, as well as the procedures that EPA will follow to evaluate the risks of chemicals procedures. EPA also promulgated a final rule, per statutory requirements, to require chemical manufacturers to report on TSCA chemicals they have manufactured (including imported) within the past 10 years. Although the framework regulations did not formally establish an approach to identify how chemicals will be selected as candidates for low- or high-priority designation, EPA will initiate a stakeholder process in FY 2018 with the objective of identifying approaches for bringing TSCA chemicals into the prioritization process. EPA will subsequently determine whether to amend the procedural regulations in consideration of the information obtained during the stakeholder process.
The new law also authorizes EPA cover a portion of its annual TSCA program costs by collecting user fees from chemical manufacturers and processors when they: Submit test data for EPA review, submit a premanufacture notice for a new chemical or a notice of new use, manufacture or process a chemical substance that is the subject of a risk evaluation, or request that EPA conduct a chemical risk evaluation. The proposal and finalization of a fees rule is an EPA priority in FY 2018.
Finally, the new law requires EPA to promulgate by June 22, 2018 a final rule that establishes reporting requirements to facilitate the update of the inventory of the supply, trade, and use of mercury in the United States. EPA will issue a proposed rule in early FY 2018 and promulgate the final rule on or before the statutory deadline.
Reconsideration of Pesticide Safety Requirements. In FY 2017, EPA solicited comments this spring on regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification in keeping with Executive Order 13777, entitled “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” EPA also held a public meeting of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee in May 2017 that included session specifically devoted to receiving public feedback on potential pesticide regulatory reform opportunities for EPA's Regulatory Reform Task Force to consider. Although many commenters expressed their support for EPA's pesticide safety regulations, EPA also received comments that suggested specific changes to the January 4, 2017, Certification of Pesticide Applicators final rule (amending the requirements at 40 CFR 171) and to the November 2, 2015, Worker Protection Standard final rule (which amended the regulations at 40 CFR 170). EPA expects to publish separate Notices of Proposed Rulemaking in FY 2018 to solicit public input on revisions to these rules.
Section 3 of Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) calls on agencies to “identify for each regulation that increases incremental cost, the offsetting regulations . . . and provide the agency's best approximation of the total costs or savings associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation.” Each action in EPA's fall 2017 Regulatory Plan and Semiannual Regulatory Agenda contains information about whether an action is anticipated to be “regulatory” or “deregulatory” in fulfilling this executive directive. Based on current schedules and expectations regarding whether or not regulatory actions are subject to Executive Order 12866 and hence Executive Order 13771, in fiscal year 2018, EPA is planning on finalizing over 30 deregulatory actions and fewer than 10 regulatory actions. EPA expects the combined cost savings of its planned deregulatory actions to far outweigh the costs of its planned regulatory actions.
By better coordinating small business activities, EPA aims to improve its technical assistance and outreach efforts, minimize burdens to small businesses in its regulations, and simplify small businesses' participation in its voluntary programs. Actions that may affect small entities can be tracked on EPA's Regulatory Flexibility website (
Steve Fruh, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Lisa Thompson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code E143-05, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Ryne Yarger, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,
Final, Judicial, August 29, 2019, Sign by no later than 14 months after publication of NPRM (currently tentative August 29, 2019) and within 15 days transmit to FR.
In addition, in December 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act established new statutory provisions applicable to CCR units, including authorizing states to implement the CCR rule through an EPA-approved permit program and authorizing the EPA to enforce the rule. On September 13, 2017, EPA granted separate petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Utilities Solid Waste Activities group and AEP Puerto Rico LP. In light of the legislation and petitions for rulemaking, the EPA is considering making additional changes to the CCR rule to provide as much flexibility to the state programs as possible, consistent with the WIIN Act. The rulemaking also includes proposed amendments related to implementation of the WIIN Act.
Alexander Livnat, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 5304P, Washington, DC 20460,
Kathy Franklin, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 5104A, Washington, DC 20460,
Lisa Christ, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,
Rose Kwok, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4502T, Washington, DC 20460,
Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Final, Judicial, December 1, 2017, Court Order: Final.
Scott Palmer, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 5305P, Washington, DC 20460,
Rose Kwok, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4502T, Washington, DC 20460,
The mission of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, Commission, or Agency) is to ensure equality of opportunity in employment by vigorously enforcing and educating the public about the following Federal statutes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex (including pregnancy), religion, or national origin); the Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended (makes it illegal to pay unequal wages to men and women performing substantially equal work under similar working conditions at the same establishment); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended (prohibits employment discrimination based on age of 40 or older); Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, and sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended (prohibit employment discrimination based on disability); Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information and limits acquisition and disclosure of genetic information); and section 304 of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (protects certain previously exempt state and local government employees from employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability).
The EEOC has authority to issue legislative regulations under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, EEOC's authority to issue legislative regulations is limited to procedural, record keeping, and reporting matters.
Three items are identified in this Regulatory Plan. On August 22, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the EEOC to reconsider its regulations under the ADA and GINA related to incentives and employer-sponsored wellness plans.
EEOC does not anticipate finalizing any regulatory or deregulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13771 in the next 12 months. One significant rule—“Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Process”—falls within an exception for regulations that affect only other Federal agencies and are related to personnel matters, this matter is at the proposed rule stage. In addition, the two rules related to wellness programs under the ADA and GINA are significant under E.O. 12866, but are not expected to be finalized in the next 12 months.
Consistent with section 4(c) of Executive Order 12866, this statement was reviewed and approved by the Chair of the Agency. The statement has not been reviewed or approved by the other members of the Commission.
Gary Hozempa, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507,
Joyce Walker-Jones, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507,
Kerry Leibig, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20507,
The mission of GSA is to deliver the best value in real estate, acquisition, and technology services to government and the American people by:
• Providing centralized procurement services for the federal government by offering billions of dollars of products, services, and facilities that federal agencies need to serve the public.
• Helping federal agencies build and acquire office space, products and other workspace services.
• Overseeing the preservation of historic federal properties.
• Creating and maintaining Governmentwide policies for travel and property management to promote efficient government operations.
• Providing tools, equipment, and non-tactical vehicles to the U.S. military.
• Providing state and local governments with law enforcement equipment, firefighting and rescue equipment, and disaster recovery products and services.
• Offering free access to and information about government programs with the following websites:
•
•
•
• Consumer protection on
• Consumer protection in Spanish on
•
• Providing free telephone assistance through the National Contact Center at 800-FED-INFO, with email and online assistance to the public.
The Agency's rulemaking program strives to be responsive, efficient, and transparent.
Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (February 24, 2017), required GSA to appoint a Regulatory Reform Officer to
These reform initiatives and policies include Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (January 30, 2017), section 6 of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (January 18, 2011), and Executive Order 12866.
In addition, GSA implements and supplements FAR requirements through the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR). The GSAR establishes agency acquisition regulations that affect GSA's business partners (
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (2011), the GSA retrospective review and analysis final and updated regulations plan can be found at
Listed below are the important rules planned that require a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis or are considered significant and/or highly visible.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) aim is to increase human understanding of the solar system and the universe that contains it and to improve American aeronautics ability. NASA's basic organization consists of the Headquarters, nine field Centers, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (a federally funded research and development center), and several component installations which report to Center Directors. Responsibility for overall planning, coordination, and control of NASA programs is vested in NASA Headquarters located in Washington, DC.
NASA continues to implement programs according to its 2014 Strategic Plan. The Agency's mission is to “Drive advances in science, technology, aeronautics, and space exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of the Earth.” The FY 2014 Strategic Plan, (available at
•
•
•
In the decades since Congress enacted the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, NASA has challenged its scientific and engineering capabilities in pursuing its mission, generating tremendous results and benefits for humankind. NASA will continue to push scientific and technical boundaries in pursuit of these goals.
The Agency's rulemaking program strives to be responsive, efficient, and transparent. As noted in Executive Order 13609, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation” (May 1, 2012), international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting public health, welfare, safety, and our environment as well as economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.
NASA, along with the Departments of State and Commerce and Defense, engages with other countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement, Nuclear Suppliers Group, Australia Group, and Missile Technology Control Regime through which the international community develops a common list of items that should be subject to export controls. NASA has also been a key participant in the Administration's Export Control Reform effort that resulted in a complete overhaul of the U.S. Munitions List and fundamental changes to the Commerce Control List. New controls have facilitated transfers of goods and technologies to allies and partners while helping prevent transfers to countries of national security and proliferation concerns.
Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (February 24, 2017), required NASA to appoint a Regulatory Reform Officer to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies and establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force) to review and evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law. NASA is doing this work primarily through its work as a signatory to Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council.
The FAR at 48 CFR chapter 1, contains procurement regulations that apply to NASA and other Federal agencies. Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1302 and FAR 1.103(b), the FAR is jointly prepared, issued, and maintained by the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, under their several statutory authorities.
These reform initiatives and policies include Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (January 30, 2017), section 6 of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (January 18, 2011), and Executive Order 12866.
In addition, NASA implements and supplements FAR requirements through the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS), 48 CFR chapter 18. As a result of the ongoing review, evaluation, and recommendations of the FAR Task Force and internal Agency discussions, NASA has identified priority regulatory and deregulatory actions that reduce costs to the public by eliminating unnecessary, ineffective, and duplicative regulations.
The Agency has focused its regulatory resources on the most serious acquisition, health, and personnel and readiness risks as discussed below.
NASA will revise the NASA FAR Supplement to clarify policy for applying Earned Value Management System (EVMS) requirements to contracts, task and delivery orders and to revise the EVMS dollar threshold as follows: Clarify that EVMS requirements are applicable to all contracts, task and delivery orders that are cost or fixed-price incentive fee, have a value of $20 million or more, including options, have a period of performance of 18 months or longer, and contain developmental work scope; raise the dollar threshold from $50 million to $100 million for requiring EVMS compliance reviews; remove the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) designation from the American National Standards Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance Standard 748, Earned Value Management Systems (ANSI/EIA-748), which was revised to EIA-748, in March 2013 Tech America Standard publication; clarify the contractor's and Government's role in identifying and approving over-target baseline or over-target schedule, and; clarify that EVMS requirements are to flow down to subcontracts.
NASA will also amend the NFS to implement revisions to the voucher and invoice submittal and payment process. These revisions are necessary in order for NASA to comply with the Office of Management and Budget issued Memorandum M-15-19, Improving Government Efficiency and Saving Taxpayer Dollars through Electronic Invoicing, which directed federal agencies to transition to electronic invoicing for appropriate federal procurement by the end of the fiscal year 2018.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) primarily issues regulations directed to other Federal agencies and to the public. These regulations include records management, information services, access to and use of NARA holdings, and grant programs. For example, records management regulations directed to Federal agencies concern the proper management and disposition of Federal records. Through the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), NARA also issues Governmentwide regulations concerning information security classification, control, and declassification programs. NARA regulations directed to the public address access to, and use of, our historically valuable holdings, including archives, donated historical materials, Nixon Presidential materials, and Presidential records. NARA also issues regulations relating to the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) grant programs.
NARA has two regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2018, which are included in The Regulatory Plan. The first priority is a substantial revision to NARA's National Industrial Security Program (NISP) regulations at 32 CFR 2004. The NISP regulations govern release of classified information to contractors and other entities that enter agreements with the Federal Government involving access to classified information. Although we are proposing to substantially revise the regulation, the proposed revisions would affect only minor changes to the program's requirements for contractors and other entities. The proposed changes primarily include new sections
The second priority this fiscal year is a new regulation for the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). The Open Government Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524), amended the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended), and created OGIS within the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). OGIS is finalizing regulations, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2104, to clarify, elaborate upon, and specify the procedures in place for Federal agencies and public requesters who seek OGIS's services within the FOIA system. The regulation will describe one of the areas in which OGIS carries out its role as the Federal FOIA Ombudsman by working with Federal agencies to provide an alternative to litigation in resolving FOIA disputes.
OPM works in several broad categories to recruit, retain and honor a world-class workforce for the American people.
• We manage Federal job announcement postings at
• We conduct background investigations for prospective employees and security clearances across government, with hundreds of thousands of cases each year.
• We uphold and defend the merit systems in Federal civil service, making sure that the Federal workforce uses fair practices in all aspects of personnel management.
• We manage pension benefits for retired Federal employees and their families. We also administer health and other insurance programs for Federal employees and retirees.
• We provide training and development programs and other management tools for Federal employees and agencies.
• In many cases, we take the lead in developing, testing and implementing new governmentwide policies that relate to personnel issues.
Altogether, we work to make the Federal government America's model employer for the 21st century.
Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (February 24, 2017), required OPM to appoint a Regulatory Reform Officer to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies and establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force) to review and evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law.
These reform initiatives and policies include Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (January 30, 2017), section 6 of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (January 18, 2011), and Executive Order 12866.
A fully searchable e-Agenda is available for viewing in its entirety at
Steve Hickman, (202) 606-1973 or
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a federal corporation created under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to guarantee the payment of pension benefits earned by nearly 40 million workers and retirees in nearly 24,000 private-sector defined benefit plans. PBGC receives no tax revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums, investment income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the trusteed plans. PBGC administers two insurance programs—one for single-employer defined benefit pension plans and a second for multiemployer defined benefit pension plans.
•
•
At the end of fiscal year (FY) 2017, PBGC had a deficit of $11 billion in its single-employer insurance program and $65 billion in its multiemployer insurance program. While the financial position of the single-employer program is likely (but not certain) to continue to improve, the multiemployer program is likely to run out of funds by the end of 2025. If that happens, PBGC will not have the money to pay benefits at the current guaranteed levels to multiemployer plan participants whose plans run out of money.
To carry out its statutory functions, PBGC issues regulations on such matters as how to pay premiums, when reports are due, what benefits are covered by the insurance program, how to terminate a plan, the liability for underfunding, and how withdrawal liability works for multiemployer plans. PBGC follows a regulatory approach that seeks to encourage the continuation and maintenance of defined benefit plans. So, in developing new regulations and reviewing existing regulations, PBGC seeks to reduce burdens on plans, employers, and participants, and to ease and simplify employer compliance wherever possible. PBGC particularly strives to meet the needs of small businesses that sponsor defined benefit plans. In all such efforts, PBGC's mission is to protect the retirement incomes of plan participants.
PBGC's regulatory/deregulatory objectives and priorities are developed in the context of the Corporation's statutory purposes:
• To encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary private pension plans;
• To provide for the timely and uninterrupted payment of pension benefits; and
• To keep premiums at the lowest possible levels.
Pension plans and the statutory framework in which they are maintained and terminated are complex. Despite this complexity, PBGC is committed to issuing simple, understandable, flexible, and timely regulations to help affected parties. PBGC's regulatory/deregulatory objectives and priorities for the fiscal year are:
• To enhance the retirement security of workers and retirees;
• To implement statutory changes through regulatory actions that ease compliance burdens and achieve maximum net benefits; and
• To simplify existing regulations and reduce burden.
PBGC endeavors in all its regulatory and deregulatory actions to promote clarity and reduce burden with the goal that net cost impact on the public is zero or less overall. PBGC's most important actions are:
Most of PBGC's regulatory/deregulatory actions are the result of its ongoing retrospective review program to identify and ameliorate inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and requirements made irrelevant over time. PBGC undertook a review of its multiemployer plan regulations and has identified rules in which it can reduce burden and clarify guidance. For example, PBGC plans to propose reductions in actuarial valuation requirements for certain small terminated multiemployer pension plans, notice requirements on plan sponsors of plans terminated by mass withdrawal, and reporting and disclosure requirements on sponsors of insolvent plans (“Terminated and Insolvent Multiemployer Plans and Duties of Plan Sponsors” RIN 1212-AB38). Another proposal would simplify how multiemployer plans calculate withdrawal liability where changes in contributions or benefits are, by statute, to be disregarded in that calculation (“Methods for Computing Withdrawal Liability” RIN 1212-AB36).
PBGC plans to propose a “housekeeping” rulemaking project to make miscellaneous technical corrections, clarifications, and improvements to PBGC's regulations, such as the reportable events regulation (particularly addressing duplicative active participant reduction event reporting) and the regulation on annual financial and actuarial information reporting (“Miscellaneous Corrections, Clarifications, and Improvements” RIN 1212-AB34). PBGC expects to undertake periodic rulemaking projects like this that deal with minor technical and clarifying issues. The “Benefit Payments” proposal (RIN 1212-AB27) would make clarifications and codify policies in PBGC's benefit payments and valuation regulations involving payment of lump sums, entitlement to a benefit, changes to benefit form, partial benefit distributions, and valuation of plan assets. PBGC's regulatory review also identified a need to update the rules for administrative review of agency decisions (RIN 1212-AB35).
Multiple proposed rulemakings would update PBGC's regulations and policies to ensure that the actuarial and economic content remains current. PBGC plans to publish proposed rules that would amend its benefit valuation and asset allocation regulations by updating its valuation assumptions and methods. Chief among the modifications PBGC is considering at this time are to interest and mortality assumptions under the asset allocation regulation (RIN 1212-AA55), and the methodology for setting interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation (RIN 1212-AB41).
PBGC takes into account the special needs and concerns of small businesses in making policy. Many plans PBGC insures are sponsored by small businesses. PBGC is considering several proposed actions that will have a positive impact on small businesses, notably its “Missing Participants” final rule discussed above. This rule would benefit small businesses by simplifying and streamlining current requirements, better coordinating with requirements of other agencies, and providing more options for sponsors of terminating non-covered plans (
PBGC encourages public participation in the regulatory process. For example, PBGC highlights when there are opportunities to comment on proposed rules and requests for information on its “Retirement Matters” blog and in its “What's New for Employers and Practitioners” updates. PBGC's current efforts to reduce regulatory burden in the projects discussed above are in substantial part a response to public comments. Most recently, PBGC asked for feedback on its regulatory planning and review of existing regulations by way of a Request for Information (RFI) published on July 26. A number of individuals and organizations responded, and PBGC is actively considering the comments, some of which are already reflected in this Fall agenda. PBGC encourages comments on an on-going basis as we continue to look
The mission of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is to maintain and strengthen the Nation's economy by enabling the establishment and viability of small businesses and by assisting in the physical and economic recovery of communities after disasters. In carrying out this mission, SBA strives to improve the economic environment for small businesses, including those in areas that have significantly higher unemployment and lower income levels than the Nation's averages and those in traditionally underserved markets. SBA has several financial, procurement, and technical assistance programs that provide a crucial foundation for those starting or growing a small business. For example, the Agency serves as a guarantor of loans made to small business by lenders that participate in SBA's programs, and also licenses small business investment companies that make equity and debt investments in qualifying small businesses using a combination of privately raised capital and SBA guaranteed leverage. SBA also funds various training and mentoring programs to help small businesses, particularly businesses owned by women, veterans, minorities, and other historically underrepresented groups, gain access to Federal government contracting opportunities. The Agency also provides management and technical assistance to existing or potential small business owners through various grants, cooperative agreements or contracts. Finally, as a vital part of its purpose, SBA also provides direct financial assistance to homeowners, renters, and businesses to repair or replace their property in the aftermath of a disaster.
SBA's regulatory policy reflects a commitment to developing regulations that reduce or eliminate the burden on the public, in particular the Agency's core constituents—small businesses. SBA's regulatory process generally includes an assessment of the costs and benefits of the regulations as required by Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review;” Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review;” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. SBA's program offices are particularly invested in finding ways to reduce the burden imposed by the Agency's core activities in its loan, grant, innovation, and procurement programs.
On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” 82 FR 9339, which establishes principles for prioritizing an agency's regulatory and deregulatory actions. E.O. 13771 was followed by E.O. 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda,” 82 FR 12285 (February 24, 2017), which identified processes for agencies to follow in overseeing their regulatory programs. This Agenda was prepared in accordance with both E.O. 13771 and E.O. 13777, and SBA will continue to work internally, as well as with the Office of Management and Budget, to fully integrate the executive orders and implementing OMB principles into the SBA rulemaking processes. As part of that effort, SBA issued a Request for Information in the
Based on the requirements of E.O. 13771 and OMB guidance, SBA currently anticipates that 3 of the 29 rulemakings that will appear in the Agency's Regulatory Agenda will be regulatory actions and 1 will be a deregulatory action. All other rulemakings are either not subject to E.O. 13771 or there is insufficient information at this stage to determine whether they are regulatory or deregulatory actions. SBA continues to work on assessing the incremental cost savings of these Agenda items, which do not include non-rulemakings, such as guidance documents, or information collections.
SBA promotes transparency, collaboration, and public participation in its rulemaking process. To that end, SBA routinely solicits comments on its regulations, even those that are not subject to the public notice and comment requirement under the Administrative Procedures Act. Where appropriate, SBA also conducts hearings, webinars, and other public events as part of its regulatory process.
The SBA Strategic Plan serves as the foundation for the regulations that the Agency will develop during the next twelve months. This Strategic Plan provides a framework for strengthening, streamlining, and simplifying SBA's programs while leveraging collaborative relationships with other agencies and the private sector to maximize the tools small business owners and entrepreneurs need to drive American innovation and strengthen the economy. The plan sets out three strategic goals: (1) Growing businesses and creating jobs; (2) serving as the voice for small business; and (3) building an SBA that meets the needs of today's and tomorrow's small businesses. In order to achieve these goals SBA will, among other objectives, focus on:
• Expanding access to capital through SBA's extensive lending network;
• Ensuring Federal contracting goals are met or exceeded by collaborating across the Federal Government to expand opportunities for small businesses and strengthen the integrity of the Federal contracting data and certification process;
• Strengthening SBA's relevance to high growth entrepreneurs and small businesses to more effectively drive innovation and job creation; and
• Mitigating risk and improving program oversight.
The regulations reported in SBA's semi-annual regulatory agenda and plan are intended to facilitate achievement of these goals and objectives. Over the next twelve months, SBA's highest priorities will be to implement the following three regulations.
(1) SBA Express Loan Program; Export Express Program (RIN 3245-AG74);
This rule will propose to amend the regulations for the SBA Express and Export Express loan programs. Current regulations, as well as policy and procedural guidance, provide an extensive framework for the delivery of SBA's 7(a) guaranteed loans through participating private sector lenders. These requirements add time and expense for lenders who must not only comply with their primary banking regulator but also with the SBA program requirements. SBA is authorized to reduce some of its requirements for small dollar loans ($350,000 or less) and permit lenders to apply many of their conventional underwriting rules instead. This proposed regulation will solicit public comment on the terms and conditions that would apply to these
(2) Women's Business Center Program (RIN 3245-AG02).
SBA's Women's Business Center Program is authorized by section 29 of the Small Business Act. The program provides financial assistance to private nonprofit organizations to conduct 5-year projects for the benefit of small business concerns owned and controlled by women. There are currently no regulations that govern the administration, management or oversight of the WBC program, including the statutorily required regulations related to disclosure of certain information during a financial audit of the non-profit organization. By finalizing the proposed rule that was published in the
This final rule will codify the program requirements and procedures for WBCs as outlined in statute, including:
• Eligibility criteria for selection as a WBC;
• use of Federal funds;
• standards for WBCs to effectively carry out program duties and responsibilities;
• use and disclosure of client data as stipulated in statute;
• conditions for receipt of supplemental funding to provide services in a declared major disaster area; and
• requirements for reporting on financial and programmatic performance.
The rule will streamline the policy and procedural requirements of the WBC Program, which are currently included in the Program Announcement and Notice of Award (NOA). In addition, certain amendments to government-wide grant requirements will be incorporated.
(3) Women-Owned Small Business and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business—Certification (RIN 3245-AG75).
SBA is proposing to amend its regulations to implement amendments to the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business (EDWOSB) Federal Contract Program that were authorized by section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015. Based on this authority, SBA is proposing to create a certification program for its WOSB and EDWOSB contracting program.
The current WOSB and EDWOSB contracting program permits firms to self-certify for the program or to be certified by a third party certifier (TPC). The program currently requires firms to submit documentation to an SBA-maintained electronic document repository. SBA regulations currently require that contracting officers must check the repository for every WOSB or EDWOSB contract awardee.
The proposed rule will create an SBA certification process, in addition to the certifications issued by TPCs. This will create an SBA certification option for WOSB and EDWOSBs similar to other SBA contracting programs. SBA's proposed rule will also contain provisions for increased oversight in order to ensure continuing eligibly of certified program participants.
The creation of an SBA certification program will remove the self-certification option, and also remove the requirement that contracting officers review repository documents of WOSB and EDWOSB contract awardees. This shift of responsibilities to SBA will enable contracting officers to focus more on awarding awards, which should lead to an increased number of set-aside or sole source contracts for WOSBs and EDWOSBs.
Section 2106 requires SBA to promulgate rules to carry out the Recovery Opportunity Loan Program not later than 270 days (August 21, 2016) after enactment of the RISE After Disaster Act of 2015.
Lenders who participate in the SBA Express program agree to accept a lower guaranty of 50 percent on loans of $350,000 or less in return for delegated authority and the ability to use forms, procedures and policies that they already follow for similarly sized non-SBA guaranteed commercial loans. This removes the additional layer of documents and permits a lender to move more quickly to a decision and funding of small dollar small business loans. Cost to deliver is an important consideration for lenders when assessing the benefits of participating with SBA programs. Streamlined rules result in increased lender participation, particularly for community banks, credit unions and other mission based lenders who generally serve more of rural communities and underserved populations with small loans. While SBA does not have specific statistics, cost savings to the lender generally trickle down to the small business applicant. Further, providing plain language regulatory guidance for the SBA Express program will reduce improper payment risk for lenders and SBA, by ensuring that lenders are fully informed and understand the program requirements.
The Export Express program provides lenders with a 75-90 percent guaranty, as well as the authority to use their own forms, procedures and policies to the extent possible to reduce redundancy in documentation, time and costs associated with underwriting export loans up to and including $500,000.
This rule finalizes proposed regulatory language that would codify this legislative authority as well as streamline the policy and procedural requirements of the Program currently included in the Program Announcement and Notice of Award (NOA). This rule also incorporates flexibilities allowable during disasters enacted under the RISE After Disaster Act. Changes made with the publication of 2 CFR part 200 and other federal grant requirements enforced over the past 28 years have been incorporated. Once final, the rule's implementation would result in standardization and transparency to Program delivery.
Note, since its creation, the WBC Program has changed through a number of Pub. L.s that have turned the WBC Program from a Demonstration into a permanent program. Laws that have impacted the Program include: The Women's Business Development Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-191); The Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-165): U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-28); The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240); and the RISE After Disaster Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-88).
This proposed rule could theoretically affect all nonprofit entities as the statute requires that an entity be organized as a nonprofit in order to participate. According to the IRS, for tax year 2010, there were over 269,000 entities that filed returns as a 501(c)(3). As the application process is voluntary and does not require a nonprofit entity to apply, the vast majority of nonprofits would not be affected. Over the past 5 years, there were a total of 133 new applications submitted for the WBC Program averaging 25-35 applications per year. The SF 424 (Application for Federal Assistance) on grants.gov does not include a field for revenue size. Based on the majority of the entities being small, SBA can presume that the majority of the Applicant Organizations are also small. It is projected that a grants writer would take approximately 20 hours to complete and submit the required application forms through grants.gov. For a grants writer at an average of $30 per hour, this would cost approximately $600. These estimates are based on the burden statements associated with the grants.gov application forms and anecdotal information from Applicant Organizations to the WBC Program. Therefore, the SBA has determined that the application section of the proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
There are currently 110 entities that participate in the WBC Program, all of which are small entities. However, the SBA has determined that the impact on these entities affected by the rule will not be significant. The rule codifies current policies and procedures that are already achieved through a Cooperative Agreement with the SBA. It does not include new reporting requirements. Rather it standardizes existing policies to ensure transparency and consistency which in theory will reduce the cost to both the WBC participants and SBA. A WBC participating in the WBC Program submits a Federal Financial Report and attachments twice a year. The estimated burden for these reports is 2 hours twice a year. The annual submission of a work plan is substantially less than the Application and is only to update any changes from the initial Application. The estimate for these forms on an annual basis is a total of 14 hours. For a grants writer at $30 per hour, the annual estimated cost would be $420.
We administer the Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance programs under title II of the Social Security Act (Act), the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program under title XVI of the Act, and the Special Veterans Benefits program under title VIII of the Act. As directed by Congress, we also assist in administering portions of the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Act. Our regulations codify the requirements for eligibility and entitlement to benefits and our procedures for administering these programs. Generally, our regulations do not impose burdens on the private sector or on State or local governments, except for the States' Disability Determination Services. We fully fund the Disability Determination Services in advance or via reimbursement for necessary costs in making disability determinations.
The entries in our regulatory plan (plan) represent issues of major importance to the Agency. Through our regulatory plan, we intend to:
A. Update the medical criteria used to evaluate disability applications to keep pace with medicine, science, technology, and workforce changes;
B. Ensure quality decisions while carefully reducing the hearings backlog, improving the disability appeals process, and improving the integrity of the disability determinations process;
C. Update SSA disability evaluation criteria, and ensure the accuracy of SSA claimant and beneficiary data;
D. Protect SSA claimants and beneficiaries through representative and representative payee rules and standards;
E. Combat Social Security fraud and impose civil monetary penalties for specific violations of the Social Security Act, while also increasing overpayment collection thresholds for OASI and DI benefit payments to be consistent with SSI; and
F. Update our Freedom of Information Act and Privacy and Disclosure rules.
We designate all of the proposed regulations in this plan as “fully or partially exempt” under Executive Order 13771. In compliance with the Administration's Regulatory Reform efforts, as prescribed by Executive Order 13771 and Executive Order 13777, SSA is committed to engaging in regulatory activity only when strictly necessary and to reducing regulatory burden wherever possible. Accordingly, our Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan include only those regulatory activities needed to administer our Social Security benefits and payments programs. Moreover, the Agenda includes de-regulatory items to remove outdated regulatory sections from the Code of Federal Regulations. Finally, we remain committed to innovate in ways that ease burdens on the public even outside the realm of formal de-regulation, such as through developing online reporting and application tools.
Our regulation in the prerule stage will:
• Help protect our claimants and beneficiaries by asking for advance input on which types of previous criminal histories, if any, should preclude someone from serving as an organizational representative payee (RIN 0960-AH79).
Our regulations will:
• Comprehensively update the medical listings for evaluating musculoskeletal disorders (RIN 0960-AG38);
• Selectively update the medical listings for evaluating digestive, cardiovascular, and skin disorders (RIN 0960-AG65);
• Ensure the accuracy of the data we collect by codifying our authority to access and use electronic payroll data (RIN 0960-AH88);
• Propose to impose deadlines on when claimant representatives must file fee petitions, to mandate standardized registration for all individuals wishing to be representatives, and will propose to add educational requirements for direct pay non-attorney representatives (RIN 0960-AI22);
• Clarify our rules regarding the redetermination of entitlement when fraud or similar fault is involved. (RIN 0960-AI10);
• Impose that SSA can assess the maximum allowable civil monetary penalty for certain violations of the Social Security Act (RIN 0960-AH91 and 0960-AI04);
• Update our Freedom of Information act policies to reflect recent legislation (RIN 0960-AI07); and
• Allow SSA to create two new categories of Privacy Act exemptions, enabling the retention of important records (RIN 0960-AH97 and 0960-AI08).
Our regulation in the final rule stage will:
• Make permanent the Attorney Advisor program, helping to reduce the hearings backlog (RIN 0960-AI23).
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (January 18, 2011), SSA regularly engages in retrospective review and analysis for multiple existing regulatory initiatives. These initiatives may be proposed or completed actions, and they do not necessarily appear in The Regulatory Plan. You can find more information on these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda at
Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
These rules are necessary to evaluate claims for Social Security disability benefits.
We expect adjudicators to support the change in the framework of the text because it makes the guidance in the introductory text and listings easier to access and understand.
Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security Administration, Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
This proposed rule is not required by statute or court order.
Joanna Firmin, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security Administration, Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Under the proposed regulation, we estimate that previously negotiated withholding schedules would remain in place. For fiscal years 2013 through 2017, we estimate an increase in overpayment collections of $137 million; and for fiscal years 2013 through 2022, we estimate an increase in overpayment collections of $644 million.
The estimate is based on the historical record of overpayment collections over the period January 2002 to December 2011, prepared for us by the Office of Quality Performance. We used this file of individual-level data to compute what the collections would have been had the 10-percent minimum been put in place at the beginning of this period. We used the same record to ascertain the growth in incurred debt over time, which we then projected to the fiscal year 2013-22 period.
The proposal is effective for partial-withholding agreements, negotiated after the effective date of the change assumed to be July 1, 2013. Under the proposed regulation, withholding schedules negotiated before that date would remain in place. For fiscal years 2013 through 2017, we estimate an increase in overpayment collections of $137 million; and for fiscal years 2013 through 2022 we estimate an increase in overpayment collections of $644 million.
Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Eric Skidmore, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security Administration, Office of Income Security Programs, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235,
This update will replace the two following systems of records currently reflected in 401.85:
(iii) Pursuant to subsection (k)(5) of the Privacy Act:
(A) The Investigatory Material Compiled for Security and Suitability Purposes System, SSA; and,
(B) The Suitability for Employment Records, SSA.
William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Brian J Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is the principal set of rules governing the acquisition process for acquiring goods and services from planning, through contract formation, and contract administration. It regulates the activities of Executive Branch government personnel in carrying out that process.
The FAR was issued pursuant to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974. The FAR Council membership consists of: The Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy and the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of National Aeronautics and Space; and the Administrator of General Services. Statutory authority to issue and maintain the FAR resides with the
Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (February 24, 2017), required GSA to appoint a Regulatory Reform Officer to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies and establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force) to review and evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law.
These reform initiatives and policies include Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (January 30, 2017), section 6 of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (January 18, 2011), and Executive Order 12866.
All of the FAR Council's rulemakings are based on requirements of executive orders, laws, and other agency rulemakings that are based on laws, Office of Management and Budget policy guidance or GAO recommendations. The Council dose very little discretionary rulemaking.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or Bureau) was established in 2010 as an independent bureau of the Federal Reserve System by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376) (Dodd-Frank Act). Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, and other authorities relating to consumer financial products and services. Among these are the consumer financial protection authorities that transferred to the CFPB from seven Federal agencies on the designated transfer date, July 21, 2011. These authorities include the ability to issue regulations under more than a dozen Federal consumer financial laws.
As provided in section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the purpose of the CFPB is to implement and enforce Federal consumer financial laws consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that such markets are fair, transparent, and competitive. The CFPB is authorized to exercise its authorities for the purpose of ensuring that, with respect to consumer financial products and services:
(1) Consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions;
(2) Consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination;
(3) Outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens;
(4) Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair competition; and
(5) Markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.
The CFPB's regulatory priorities for the period from November 1, 2017, to October 31, 2018, include continuing rulemaking activities to (1) Implement statutory directives; (2) address market failures, facilitate fair competition among financial service providers, and improve consumer understanding; and (3) modernize, clarify, and streamline consumer financial regulations to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens.
Much of the Bureau's rulemaking work is focusing on implementing directives mandated in the Dodd-Frank Act and other statutes. As part of these rulemakings, the Bureau is working to achieve the consumer protection objectives of the statutes while minimizing regulatory burden on financial services providers and facilitating a smooth implementation process for both industry and consumers.
For example, the Bureau is continuing efforts to facilitate implementation of critical consumer protections under the Dodd-Frank Act that guard against mortgage market practices that contributed to the nation's most significant financial crisis in several decades. Since 2013, the Bureau has issued regulations as directed by the Dodd-Frank Act to implement certain protections for mortgage originations and servicing, integrate various Federal mortgage disclosures, and amend mortgage reporting requirements under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). The Bureau is conducting follow-up rulemakings as warranted to address issues that have arisen during the implementation process for these rules and to provide greater clarification and certainty to financial services providers. As discussed below, the Bureau has begun the preparation of reports assessing significant rules implementing provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Bureau is also working to implement section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amends ECOA to require financial institutions to report information concerning credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses. This rulemaking could provide critical information about how these businesses—which are critical engines for economic growth—access credit. The Bureau held a public hearing on this subject in spring 2017, and released a white paper summarizing preliminary research on the small business lending market. In May 2017, the Bureau also issued a Request for Information seeking public comment on, among other things, the types of credit products offered and the types of data currently collected by lenders in this market and the potential complexity, cost of, and privacy issues related to, small business data collection. The information received will help the Bureau determine how to implement the rule effectively and minimize burdens on lenders.
The Bureau is considering rules in places where there are substantial market failures that make it difficult for consumers to engage in informed decision making and otherwise protect their own interests. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the Bureau to focus on activities that promote fair competition among financial services providers, which itself has substantial benefits for consumers.
For example, the Bureau released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in June 2016, building on several years of research documenting consumer harms from practices related to payday loans,
The Bureau is also engaged in rulemaking activities regarding the debt collection market, which continues to be a top source of complaints to the Bureau. The Bureau is concerned that, because consumers cannot choose their debt collectors or “vote with their feet,” consumers have less ability to protect themselves from harmful practices. In January 2017, the Bureau published the results of a survey of consumers about their experiences with debt collection. The Bureau has also received encouragement from industry to engage in rulemaking to resolve conflicts in case law and address issues of concern under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), such as the application of the 40-year-old statute to modern communication technologies. The Bureau released an outline of proposals under consideration in July 2016, concerning practices by companies that are “debt collectors” under the FDCPA, in advance of convening a panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy to consult with representatives of small businesses that might be affected by the rulemaking. The Bureau expects to release a proposed rule in late 2017 concerning FDCPA collectors' communications practices and consumer disclosures. The Bureau intends to follow up separately at a later time about concerns regarding information flows between creditors and FDCPA collectors and about potential rules to govern creditors that collect their own debts.
The Bureau is also engaged in policy analysis and further research initiatives in preparation for a potential rulemaking regarding overdraft programs on checking accounts. After several years of research, the Bureau believes that there are consumer protection concerns with regard to these programs. Consumers do not shop based on overdraft fee amounts and policies, and the market for overdraft services does not appear to be competitive. Under the current regulatory regime consumers can opt in to permit their financial institution to charge fees for ATM and point-of-sale debit overdrafts, but the complexity of the system may complicate consumer decision making. Despite widespread use of disclosure forms, the regime produces substantially different opt-in rates across different depository institutions and the Bureau's supervisory and enforcement work indicates that some institutions are aggressively steering consumers to opt in. The CFPB is engaged in consumer testing of revised opt-in forms and considering whether other regulatory changes may be warranted to enhance consumer decision making.
In addition, the Bureau is continuing rulemaking activities that will ensure meaningful supervision of non-bank financial services providers in order to create a more level playing field for depository and non-depository institutions. Under section 1024 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is authorized to supervise “larger participants” of markets for various consumer financial products and services as defined by Bureau rule. The Bureau has defined the threshold for larger participants in several markets in past rulemakings, and is now working to develop a proposed rule that would define non-bank “larger participants” in the market for personal loans, including consumer installment loans and vehicle title loans. The Bureau is also considering whether rules to require registration of these or other non-depository lenders would facilitate supervision, as has been suggested to the Bureau by both consumer advocates and industry groups.
The Bureau's October 2016, rulemaking concerning prepaid financial products also advanced fairness and consistency objectives by creating a uniform disclosure regime and providing basic protections similar to those enjoyed by users of debit cards and credit cards. In April 2017, the Bureau extended the general effective date of the rule to April 1, 2018. In June 2017, the Bureau issued a proposal that would make targeted changes to the 2016 prepaid rule to reduce implementation and compliance burdens on the industry and ensure consumer understanding of and access to these products. The Bureau expects to issue a final rule in fall 2017.
The Bureau's third group of activities concerns modernizing, streamlining, and clarifying consumer financial regulations and other activities to reduce unwarranted regulatory burden and facilitate consumer-friendly innovation and increased access to consumer financial markets as directed by the Dodd-Frank Act. Since most of the Federal consumer financial laws that the Bureau administers were enacted in the 1960s and 1970s, there is often substantial demand for these activities from both industry and consumer advocates alike.
The Bureau is also beginning work this fall on the first in a series of reviews of existing regulations that it inherited from other agencies through the transfer of authorities under the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau had previously sought feedback on the inherited rules as a whole, and identified and executed burden reduction projects from that undertaking. The Bureau has largely completed those initial projects and believes that the next logical step is to review individual regulations—or portions of large regulations—in more detail to identify opportunities to clarify ambiguities, address developments in the marketplace, or modernize or streamline provisions. The Bureau notes that other Federal financial services regulators have engaged in these types of reviews over time and believes that such an initiative would be a natural complement to its work to facilitate implementation of new regulations.
For its first review, the Bureau expects to focus primarily on Subparts B and G of Regulation Z, which implement TILA with respect to open-end credit generally and credit cards in particular. As part of this general effort, the Bureau is considering rules to modernize the Bureau's database of credit card agreements to reduce burden on issuers that submit credit card agreements to the Bureau and make the database more useful for consumers and the general public. The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act) requires credit card issuers to post their credit card agreements to their internet site, and submit those agreements to the Bureau to be posted on an internet site maintained by the Bureau. The Bureau believes an improved submission process and database would be more efficient for both industry and the Bureau and would allow consumers and
In addition to these rulemaking activities noted in the Unified Agenda, the Bureau is conducting other activities to modernize, streamline, and clarify consumer financial regulatory activities. For example, section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act specifically directs the Bureau to assess the effectiveness of significant rules five years after they are implemented, including seeking public comment. The Bureau has sought public comment on three significant rules: The remittance rule, the ability to repay rule, and the RESPA mortgage servicing rule. The Bureau is currently reviewing those comments as part of its work to develop the reports mandated by section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The findings in these reports will help the Bureau and the public evaluate the recommendations the Bureau received and inform the Bureau's decisions whether adjustments to rules are warranted. The Bureau has also added items to its long-term regulatory agenda, including a potential rulemaking to modernize Regulation E, which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and to address issues of concern in connection with data aggregators, either under existing regulatory regimes such as EFTA and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) or under the Dodd-Frank Act more generally. The Bureau believes that technological and market developments may warrant rulemaking under EFTA and FCRA to clarify the application of existing statutes and regulations, modernize and streamline those laws, and address emerging consumer protection concerns. The Bureau continues to look at other methods of modernizing, streamlining, and clarifying its regulations, consistent with the goal of reducing overall regulatory burden.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of death and injury associated with consumer products. To achieve this goal, among other things, the CPSC:
• Develops mandatory product safety standards or bans when other efforts are inadequate to address a safety hazard, or where required by statute;
• obtains repair, replacement, or refunds for defective products that present a substantial product hazard;
• develops information and education campaigns about the safety of consumer products;
• participates in the development or revision of voluntary product safety standards; and
• follows statutory mandates.
Unless directed otherwise by congressional mandate, when deciding which of these approaches to take in any specific case, the CPSC gathers and analyzes data about the nature and extent of the risk presented by the product. The Commission's rules at 16 CFR 1009.8 require the Commission to consider, among other factors, the following criteria, when deciding the level of priority for any particular project:
• Frequency and severity of injury;
• causality of injury;
• chronic illness and future injuries;
• costs and benefits of Commission action;
• unforeseen nature of the risk;
• vulnerability of the population at risk;
• probability of exposure to the hazard; and
• additional criteria that warrant Commission attention.
Currently, the Commission is not considering taking action in the next twelve months on any rules that would constitute a “significant regulatory action” under the definition of the term in Executive Order 12866.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) is an independent agency charged by its enabling statute, the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), with protecting American consumers from “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in the marketplace. The Commission strives to ensure that consumers benefit from a vigorously competitive marketplace. The Commission's work is rooted in a belief that competition, based on truthful and non-misleading information about products and services, provides consumers the best choice of products and services at the lowest prices.
The Commission pursues its goal of promoting competition in the marketplace through two different but complementary approaches. Through its consumer protection activities, the Commission seeks to ensure that consumers receive accurate, truthful, and non-misleading information in the marketplace. At the same time, to ensure that consumers have a choice of products and services at competitive prices and quality, the marketplace must be policed for anticompetitive business practices and to prohibit anticompetitive mergers. These two complementary missions make the Commission unique insofar as it is the nation's only Federal agency with this combination of statutory authority to protect consumers.
The Commission is also charged with the responsibility of issuing and enforcing regulations under a number of statutes, including 16 trade regulation rules promulgated pursuant to the FTC Act and numerous regulations issued pursuant to certain credit, financial and marketing practice statutes
For the remainder of the
The Commission is, first and foremost, a law enforcement agency. It pursues its mandate to enhance competition and protect consumers primarily through case-by-case enforcement of the FTC Act and other statutes. This includes:
One recent example is the FTC's enforcement action along with its law enforcement partners, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency, to compensate consumers who were harmed by Volkswagen both because the company allegedly unfairly sold cars with illegal defeat-emissions-testing devices and deceptively advertised these cars with claims that they were “clean.” Under the Commission's 2.0 liter and 3.0 liter settlements, Volkswagen will offer consumers more than $11 billion in compensation.
The Western Union Company (Western Union), a global money services business headquartered in Englewood, Colorado, agreed to pay $586 million to settle FTC and Department of Justice charges that the company allowed scammers to use its money transfer system to collect money from their victims. The FTC alleged that the company's failures, including not taking effective action against complicit agents, resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent transfers since 2004. As part of this global settlement, the FTC also required Western Union to implement an effective anti-fraud program. The Department of Justice and the FTC will use the $586 million payment to provide redress to defrauded consumers.
In a historic decision, an Illinois federal court ordered Dish Network to pay $280 million in civil penalties and to stop alleged violations of the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule and other federal and state laws. The Department of Justice filed charges on behalf of the FTC and four states against the satellite TV provider. Dish allegedly made millions of illegal calls, including to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry, and used unscrupulous tactics to generate programming sales. The court also ordered Dish to ensure its marketing practices comply with the law. The civil penalties include a record-setting $168 million to the federal government, with the remainder going to the states.
In the
The FTC, jointly with the Office of the Attorney General of North Dakota, filed a complaint in federal court to block Sanford Health's proposed acquisition of Mid Dakota Clinic, alleging that the deal would violate antitrust law by significantly reducing competition for adult primary care physician services, pediatric services, obstetrics and gynecology services, and general surgery physician services in the greater Bismarck, North Dakota and Mandan, North Dakota metropolitan area.
The agency also continues to focus on non-merger enforcement. For example, the agency brought a case against ViroPharma Inc. alleging it engaged in sham petitioning to delay the market entry of generic competitors.
In addition to consumer protection and competition enforcement matters, the agency is leading several regulatory reform initiatives under the leadership of Acting Chairman Ohlhausen. Her priorities in this regard are threefold: Promoting economic liberty, reforming regulation, and increasing agency transparency:
In many situations, the expansion of occupational licensing threatens economic liberty. Unnecessary licensing restrictions erect significant barriers and impose costs that cause real harm to American workers, employers, consumers, and the economy as a whole, with no measurable benefits to consumers or society. These restrictions can:
• Close the door on job opportunities for people who are ready to work, especially the nation's most economically disadvantaged citizens;
• prevent workers from marketing their skills to employers and consumers;
• reduce entrepreneurship and business innovation, insulating current service providers from new forms of competition; and
• Stifle price, quality, and service competition among professionals, which hurts all consumers.
This Task Force has submitted comments on a state bill to reduce licensing requirements; launched a new website (
Under the Acting Chairman's direction, the FTC is exploring additional ways to provide practical guidance on how the FTC Act applies to data security. The agency is building on existing business guidance materials, including
Businesses have asked the Commission to keep the guidance coming, which is why the Acting Chairman launched a new initiative, Stick with Security. Starting in late July 2017 and going into the fall, agency staff is publishing a weekly Business Blog post focusing on each of the ten Start with Security principles.
As set out below, the Commission is focused on helping small business owners avoid scams and protect their systems and customer data from threats, balancing the privacy and safety impacts of emerging technologies with consumer benefits, and assisting military consumers.
In June 2017, the Commission and the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) together sponsored the Connected Cars workshop, which examined the privacy and safety impacts of automated and connected motor vehicle technologies along with consumer benefits. Modern motor vehicles increasingly are being equipped with technologies that enable them to access information via the internet and gather, store and transmit data for entertainment, performance and safety purposes. Automated vehicles, vehicles with Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications technology, and other connected vehicles (
Building on the success of its two previous PrivacyCon events held in 2016 and 2017, the Commission announced a call for presentations for its third PrivacyCon, which will take place on February 28, 2018. The 2018 event will focus on economic questions including how to quantify the harms that result from companies' failure to secure consumer information, and how to balance the costs and benefits of privacy-protective technologies and practices. As part of this initiative, the
The Internet of Things is also an expanding part of the Commission's work. It comes in the form of products such as fitness devices, wearables, smart cars, and connected smoke detectors, light bulbs, and refrigerators. While these products are innovative and exciting, they are also collecting, storing, and often sharing vast amounts of consumer data, some of it very personal, raising familiar and new concerns relating to privacy and security. Manufacturers and service providers are finding ways to track consumers across multiple devices, often without disclosing they are doing so. The FTC released a report on so-called cross-device tracking.
On March 9, 2017, the Commission also hosted its third FinTech Forum, focusing on the consumer implications of two rapidly developing technologies: Artificial intelligence and blockchain. The FinTech Forum series is part of the FTC's ongoing work to protect consumers taking advantage of new and emerging financial technology. As technological advances expand the ways consumers can store, share, spend, and borrow money, the FTC is working to keep consumers protected while encouraging innovation for consumers' benefit. Artificial intelligence focuses on the capability for machines to mimic rational or human-like thought processes or behaviors, including learning and problem solving. The technology may be used, for example, to provide personalized financial services for consumers, including providing money management tools. Blockchain technology involves a distributed digital ledger for recording transactions that can be shared widely. It first emerged as the foundation for digital currency, and it is now being explored for other consumer-focused uses including payment systems and “smart contracts.”
For instance, the FTC has used its authority under Section 6(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act to explore the impact of patent assertion entities (PAE), firms that acquire patents from third parties and then try to make money by licensing or suing accused infringers. In 2014, the FTC received clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act from the Office of Management and Budget to issue compulsory process orders to PAEs and other industry participants to develop a better understanding of PAE business models. In October 2016, the FTC published a staff report that spotlighted the business practices of PAEs and recommended patent litigation reforms.
In conjunction with the Department of Justice, the Commission updated the Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property, also known as the IP Licensing Guidelines to reflect changes in law and accumulated antitrust enforcement experience over the past 20 years.
The FTC cooperated on enforcement-related matters with foreign agencies or multilateral organizations in consumer protection and privacy matters, using its authority under the U.S. SAFE WEB Act in these matters to share information or provide investigative assistance to foreign authorities. One highlight was the FTC's successful collaboration with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Australian Information Commissioner in investigating a massive data breach and other allegedly deceptive practices of the Toronto-based adult dating website,
In the policy arena, the FTC played a leading role in revising the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)'s Guidelines on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, which were adopted by the OECD Council in early 2016 to address new developments in e-commerce including mobile applications, digital content, and peer platform marketplaces as well as the revised United Nations Guidelines on Consumer Protection, which include provisions on e-commerce, consumer financial services, dispute resolution and redress, and international cooperation.
The FTC also continues to advocate for global interoperability and strong enforcement of data privacy laws through collaboration with the Department of Commerce on the E.U.-U.S. Privacy Shield. The Privacy Shield provides a mechanism for transatlantic data transfers and strengthens cooperation between the FTC and EU Data Protection Authorities by providing for vigorous enforcement of the Framework's requirements.
Throughout 2017, the FTC's international competition program promoted cooperation with competition agencies in other jurisdictions and advocated convergence of international antitrust policies toward best practice. As co-chair of the Mergers Working Group of the International Competition Network (ICN), the FTC is leading an update of the ICN's signature recommended practices for merger notification and review procedures, and for merger analysis, and developing practical guidance on merger investigative techniques and on merger remedies. It also hosted the ICN's 2017 merger workshop. The FTC also originated and leads the ICN Training on Demand project, which is creating a comprehensive curriculum of video training materials on competition law and practice. The FTC also continues to further the important roles that it plays in the competition groups of the OECD, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).
In addition to promoting convergence toward sound competition policy and enforcement, the FTC advocates fair and transparent enforcement procedures. Through its leadership of the ICN's implementation efforts, the FTC continues to play a key role in promoting implementation of the ICN's Guidance on Investigative Process, the most comprehensive agency-led effort to articulate principles and practices of procedural fairness in antitrust investigations, as well as the ICN's work on merger notification and review procedures. In the OECD, the FTC played a key role in the Competition Committee's project on international cooperation and evaluating the impact of competition enforcement. The FTC is also playing an active role in developing the competition chapters of the renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement.
On January 13, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice issued revised Antitrust Guidelines for International Enforcement and Cooperation.
Finally, the FTC has continued its robust technical assistance program to share its experience with competition and consumer protection agencies around the world. In 2017, the FTC conducted programs in jurisdictions around the globe, including Argentina, Brazil, Central America, India, Mexico, the Philippines, Ukraine and the Southern African region. Through its International Fellows Program, the FTC brought ten international competition colleagues from five competition agencies to work alongside FTC staff on antitrust enforcement matters for fiscal year 2017. Under the same program, the FTC brought international consumer protection colleagues from agencies to work alongside FTC staff on consumer protection matters and research for fiscal year 2017.
In addition, the Commission established the Franchise Rule Alternative Law Enforcement Program in partnership with the International Franchise Association (IFA), a nonprofit organization that represents both franchisors and franchisees. This program assists franchisors found to have a minor or technical violation of the Franchise Rule, 16 CFR 436, in complying with the rule. Violations involving fraud or other FTC Act violations are not candidates for referral to the program. The IFA teaches the franchisor how to comply with the rule and monitors its business for a period of
The Commission continued its “second chance” policy for certain minor and inadvertent violations of the textile and wool labeling rules, which can apply to small businesses. The Textile Corporate Leniency Policy helps increase overall compliance with the rules while minimizing the burden on business of correcting inadvertent labeling errors that are not likely to injure consumers. Since the Policy was announced (2002), 242 companies have been granted “leniency” for self-reported minor violations of the FTC textile regulations.
In 1992, the Commission implemented a program to review its rules and guides regularly. The Commission's review program is patterned after provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612 and complies with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The Commission's 10-year program also is consistent with section 5(a) of Executive Order 12866, which directs executive branch agencies to develop a plan to reevaluate periodically all of their significant existing regulations. 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993). Under the Commission's program, rules are reviewed on a 10-year schedule that results in more frequent reviews than are generally required by Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This program is also broader than the review contemplated under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, in that it provides the Commission with an ongoing systematic approach for seeking information about the costs and benefits of its rules and guides and whether there are changes that could minimize any adverse economic effects, not just a “significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 610. In each rule review, the Commission requests public comments on, among other things, the economic impact and benefits of the rule; possible conflict between the rule and state, local, or other federal laws or regulations; and the effect on the rule of any technological, economic, or other industry changes.
As part of its continuing 10-year review plan, the Commission examines the effect of rules and guides on small businesses and on the marketplace in general. These reviews may lead to the revision or rescission of rules and guides to ensure that the Commission's consumer protection and competition goals are achieved efficiently and at the least cost to business. Pursuant to this program, the Commission has rescinded 37 rules and guides promulgated under the FTC's general authority and updated dozens of others since the early 1990s.
The FTC continues to take a fresh look at its long-standing regulatory review process. In June 2017, the Commission issued a revised 10-year review schedule. The Commission is currently reviewing 16 of the 65 rules and guides within its jurisdiction. The FTC maintains a web page at
In 2018, the Commission proposes initiating reviews of four of its rules or guides: (1) Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for Recycled Oil, 16 CFR 311; (2) Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising, 16 CFR 436; and (3) Identity Theft [Red Flags] Rules, 16 CFR 681, and (4) The Nursery Guides, 16 CFR 18.
The Commission is continuing review of a number of rules and guides, which are discussed below.
Staff anticipates sending a recommendation to the Commission by early 2018 that would clarify the definition of foreign issuer in the HSR Rules. The definition in the HSR Rules for U.S. and Foreign persons and issuers focuses on three tests: (1) Location of incorporation, (2) country whose laws organized under and (3) principal offices. The term “principal offices” is not defined in the rules and is often a source of confusion for parties. This rulemaking would provide a definition.
The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act requires wearing apparel and other covered household textile articles to be marked with (1) the generic names and percentages by weight of the constituent fibers present in the textile fiber product; (2) the name under which the manufacturer or another responsible USA company does business, or in lieu thereof, the registered identification number (RN) of such a company; and (3) the name of the country where the textile product was processed or manufactured. The implementing rules are set forth at 16 CFR 303.
Since the publication of the 2016 Regulatory Plan, the Commission has issued the following final rules or taken other actions to close other rulemaking proceedings. These final rules continue to be consistent with the President's Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles contained in Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13771.
The Disposal Rule requires any person or entity that maintains or otherwise possesses consumer information for a business purpose to properly dispose of the information to protect against unauthorized access to or use of the information. Consumer information means any record about an individual that is a consumer report or is derived from a consumer report, or a compilation of such records. This Rule implements section 216 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, which is designed to reduce the risk of consumer fraud and related harms, including identity theft, created by improper disposal of consumer information.
This Rule sets out the general duties of a used vehicle dealer and requires that a completed Buyers Guide be posted at all times on the side window of each used car a dealer offers for sale. Dealers must disclose on the Buyers Guide whether the vehicle is covered by a warranty, and if so, the type and duration of the warranty coverage, or whether the vehicle is being sold “as is no warranty.”
The actions under consideration inform and protect consumers, while minimizing the regulatory burdens on legitimate businesses. The Commission continues to identify and weigh the costs and benefits of proposed regulatory actions and possible alternative actions and to seek and consider the broadest practicable array of comment from affected consumers, businesses, and the public at large. In sum, the Commission's regulatory actions are aimed at efficiently and fairly promoting the ability of “private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the American people.” Executive Order 12866, section 1.
The Commission has no proposed rules that would be a “significant regulatory action” under the definition in Executive Order 12866.
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order.
In 1988, Congress adopted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) (Pub L. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2475) with a primary purpose of providing “a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments.” IGRA established the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or the Commission) to protect such gaming, amongst other things, as a means of generating tribal revenue.
At its core, Indian gaming is a function of sovereignty exercised by tribal governments. In addition, the Federal government maintains a government-to-government relationship with the tribes—a responsibility of the NIGC. Thus, while the Agency is committed to strong regulation of Indian gaming, the Commission is equally committed to strengthening government-to-government relations by
As an independent regulatory agency, the NIGC has been performing a retrospective review of its existing regulations well before Executive Order 13771 was issued on January 30, 2017. The NIGC, however, recognizes the importance of Executive Order 13771 and its regulatory review is being conducted in the spirit of Executive Order 13771, to identify those regulations that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with input from the public. In addition, as required by Executive Order 13175, issued on November 6, 2000, the Commission has been conducting government-to-government consultations with tribes regarding each regulation's relevancy, consistency in application, and limitations or barriers to implementation, based on the tribes' experiences. The consultation process is also intended to result in the identification of areas for improvement and needed amendments, if any, new regulations, and the possible repeal of outdated regulations.
The following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with the review:
More specifically, the NIGC is currently considering promulgating new regulations in the following areas: (i) Amendments to its regulatory definitions to conform to the newly promulgated rules; (ii) the suspension of the existing minimum internal control standards (MICS) in part 542; (iii) updates or revisions to its management contract regulations to address the current state of the industry; (iv) the review and revision of the minimum internal control standards for Class II gaming updates; (v) regulation that would provide a preference to qualified Indian-owned businesses when purchasing goods or services for the Commission at a fair market price; (vi) revisions to the minimum technical standards for gaming equipment used with the play of Class II games; (vii) revisions to the existing Freedom of Information Act procedures in part 517 as a means to bring them into full compliance with the Freedom of Information Act; and (viii) revisions to the NIGC's fee publication schedule to provide for one, yearly publication no later than November 1st each year.
The NIGC anticipates that the ongoing consultations with tribes will continue to play an important role in the development of the NIGC's rulemaking efforts.
Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the possession and use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material. Our regulatory mission is to license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, and promote the common defense and security. As part of our mission, we regulate the operation of nuclear power plants and fuel-cycle plants; the safeguarding of nuclear materials from theft and sabotage; the safe transport, storage, and disposal of radioactive materials and wastes; the decommissioning and safe release for other uses of licensed facilities that are no longer in operation; and the medical, industrial, and research applications of nuclear material. In addition, we license the import and export of radioactive materials.
As part of our regulatory process, we routinely conduct comprehensive regulatory analyses that examine the costs and benefits of contemplated regulations. We have developed internal procedures and programs to ensure that we impose only necessary requirements on our licensees and to review existing regulations to determine whether the requirements imposed are still necessary.
Our regulatory priorities for fiscal year (FY) 2018 reflect our complex mission and will enable us to achieve our two strategic goals described in NUREG-1614, Volume 6, “Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2014-2018” (
This section contains information on some of our most important and significant regulatory actions that we are considering issuing in proposed or final form during FY 2018. For additional information on these regulatory actions and on a broader spectrum of our upcoming regulatory actions, see our portion of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. We also provide additional information on planned rulemaking and petition for rulemaking activities, including priority and schedule, on our website at
The following rulemaking activities meet the requirements of a significant regulatory action in Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” because they are likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of the significant and not significant regulatory and deregulatory actions being developed in agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in conformance with Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” 13777 “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” and 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The agenda also describes regulations affecting small entities as required by section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354. This agenda also identifies regulatory actions that are being reviewed in compliance with section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We invite public comment on those actions as well as any regulation consistent with E.O. 13563.
USDA has attempted to list all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication except for minor and routine or repetitive actions, but some may have been inadvertently missed. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing. Also, the dates shown for the steps of each action are estimated and are not commitments to act on or by the date shown.
USDA's complete regulatory agenda is available online at
(1) Rules that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
For this edition of the USDA regulatory agenda, the most important regulatory and deregulatory actions are summarized in a Statement of Regulatory Priorities that is included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online regulatory agenda and in part II of the
For further information on any specific entry shown in this agenda, please contact the person listed for that action. For general comments or inquiries about the agenda, please contact Michael Poe, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-3257.
• Let the rule become effective on November 14, 2017;
• Suspend the rule indefinitely;
• Delay the effective date of the rule further, beyond the effective date of November 14, 2017; and
• Withdraw the rule so that USDA would not pursue implementation of the rule.
Comments were received on all four options. Based on the content of the comments received and the evaluation those comments generated, this action will determine the disposition of the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices rule published on January 19, 2017. The option chosen was to Delay the effective date of the rule further, beyond the effective date of November 14, 2017.
Office of the Secretary, Commerce.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In compliance with Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, the Department of Commerce (Commerce), in the spring and fall of each year, publishes in the
Commerce's fall 2017 regulatory agenda includes regulatory activities that are expected to be conducted during the period November 1, 2017, through October 31, 2018.
Commerce hereby publishes its fall 2017 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions pursuant to Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
In this edition of Commerce's regulatory agenda, a list of the most important significant regulatory and deregulatory actions and a Statement of Regulatory Priorities are included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the issue of the
In addition, beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, Commerce's entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Within Commerce, the Office of the Secretary and various operating units may issue regulations. Among these operating units, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Bureau of Industry and Security, and the Patent and Trademark Office, issue the greatest share of Commerce's regulations.
A large number of regulatory actions reported in the Agenda deal with fishery management programs of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). To avoid repetition of programs and definitions, as well as to provide some understanding of the technical and institutional elements of NMFS' programs, an “Explanation of Information Contained in NMFS Regulatory Entries” is provided below.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
The Council process for developing FMPs and amendments makes it difficult for NMFS to determine the significance and timing of some regulatory actions under consideration by the Councils at the time the semiannual regulatory agenda is published.
Commerce's fall 2017 regulatory agenda follows.
Agency Contact: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930,
Department of Defense (DoD).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this semiannual agenda of regulatory documents, including those that are procurement-related, for public information and comments under Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This agenda incorporates the objective and criteria, when applicable, of the regulatory reform program under the Executive order and other regulatory guidance. It contains DoD regulations initiated by DoD components that may have economic and environmental impact on State, local, or tribal interests under the criteria of Executive Order 12866. Although most DoD regulations listed in the agenda are of limited public impact, their nature may be of public interest and, therefore, are published to provide notice of rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation in the internal DoD rulemaking process. Members of the public may submit comments on individual proposed and interim final rulemakings at
This agenda updates the report published on August 24, 2017, and includes regulations expected to be issued and under review over the next 12 months. The next agenda is scheduled to be published in the spring of 2018.
The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is in the Unified Agenda available online.
For information concerning the overall DoD regulatory improvement program and for general semiannual agenda information, contact Ms. Patricia Toppings, telephone 571-372-0485, or write to Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Advisory Committee Division, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010, or email:
For questions of a legal nature concerning the agenda and its statutory requirements or obligations, write to Office of the General Counsel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1600, or call 703-697-2714.
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations, other than those which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Morgan Park, telephone 571-372-0489, or write to Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Advisory Committee Division, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010, or email:
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Jennifer Hawes, telephone 571-372-6115, or write to Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060, or email:
For general information on Department of the Army regulations, contact Ms. Brenda Bowen, telephone 703-428-6173, or write to the U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: AAHS-RDR-C, Casey Building, Room 102, 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22315-3860, or
For general information on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations, contact Mr. Chip Smith, telephone 703-693-3644, or write to Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Policy and Legislation), 108 Army Pentagon, Room 2E569, Washington, DC 20310-0108, or
For general information on Department of the Navy regulations, contact LCDR Audrey Nichols, telephone 703-614-7408, or write to Department of the Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Administrative Law Division (Code 13), Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Avenue SE, Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20374-5066, or
For general information on Department of the Air Force regulations, contact Bao-Anh Trinh, telephone 703-614-8500, or write the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief, Information Dominance/Chief Information Officer (SAF CIO/A6), 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1800, or
For specific agenda items, contact the appropriate individual indicated in each DoD component report.
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions is composed of the regulatory status reports, including procurement-related regulatory status reports, from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Military Departments. Included also is the regulatory status report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, whose civil works functions fall under the reporting requirements of Executive Order 12866 and involve water resource projects and regulation of activities in waters of the United States.
In addition, this agenda, although published under the reporting requirements of Executive Order 12866, continues to be the DoD single-source reporting vehicle, which identifies regulations that are currently applicable under the various regulatory reform programs in progress. Therefore, DoD components will identify those rules which come under the criteria of the:
a. Regulatory Flexibility Act;
b. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;
c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Those DoD regulations, which are directly applicable under these statutes, will be identified in the agenda and their action status indicated. Generally, the regulatory status reports in this agenda will contain five sections: (1) Prerule stage; (2) proposed rule stage; (3) final rule stage; (4) completed actions; and (5) long-term actions. Where certain regulatory actions indicate that small entities are affected, the effect on these entities may not necessarily have significant economic impact on a substantial number of these entities as
Comments and recommendations are invited on the rules reported and should be addressed to the DoD component representatives identified in the regulatory status reports. Although sensitive to the needs of the public, as well as regulatory reform, DoD reserves the right to exercise the exemptions and flexibility permitted in its rulemaking process in order to proceed with its overall defense-oriented mission. The publishing of this agenda does not waive the applicability of the military affairs exemption in section 553 of title 5 U.S.C. and section 3 of Executive Order 12866.
Department of Energy.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared and is making available its portion of the semiannual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Agenda), including its Regulatory Plan (Plan), pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Agenda is a government-wide compilation of upcoming and ongoing regulatory activity, including a brief description of each rulemaking and a timetable for action. The Agenda also includes a list of regulatory actions completed since publication of the last Agenda. The Department of Energy's portion of the Agenda includes regulatory actions called for by statute, including amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act, and programmatic needs of DOE offices.
The internet is the basic means for disseminating the Agenda and providing users the ability to obtain information from the Agenda database. DOE's entire Fall 2017 Agenda can be accessed online by going to
Publication in the
• General Service Fluorescent Lamps (1904-AD09).
• Residential Conventional Cooking Products (1904-AD15).
The Plan appears in both the online Agenda and the
DOE is also amending the test procedure to improve field representativeness. These amendments will take effect coincident with updated energy conservation standards and would be part of a new Appendix M1. The new Appendix M1 includes: (1) New higher external static pressure requirements for all units, including unique minimum external static pressure requirements for certain kinds of products; (2) new default fan power values for rating coil-only units; revisions to the heating load line in the calculation of HSPF; and (3) amendments to the test procedures for variable speed heat pumps to allow better representation of their low-ambient-temperature performance, including an optional 5 °F heating mode test.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 require the semiannual issuance of an inventory of rulemaking actions under development throughout the Department, offering for public review summarized information about forthcoming regulatory actions.
Ann C. Agnew, Executive Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201; (202) 690-5627.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal government's lead agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. HHS enhances the health and well-being of Americans by promoting effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services.
This Agenda presents the regulatory activities that the Department expects to undertake in the foreseeable future to advance this mission. HHS has an agency-wide effort to support the Agenda's purpose of encouraging more effective public participation in the regulatory process. For example, to encourage public participation, we regularly update our regulatory web page (
The rulemaking abstracts included in this paper issue of the
Michael Bernstein, Regulatory Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, WO 51, Room 6240, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
Sunlamp products incorporate ultraviolet (UV) lamps and include devices such as UV tanning beds and booths. People who use sunlamp products are at increased risk of developing skin cancer and other illnesses, and sustaining injuries.
In addition, we are establishing new requirements or revising existing requirements for quality reporting by specific Medicare providers (acute care hospitals, PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, LTCHs, and inpatient psychiatric facilities). We also are establishing new requirements or revising existing requirements for eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) participating in the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs. We are updating policies relating to the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program.
We also are making changes relating to transparency of accrediting organization survey reports and plans of correction of providers and suppliers; electronic signature and electronic submission of the Certification and Settlement Summary page of the Medicare cost reports; and clarification of provider disposal of assets.
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This regulatory agenda is a semiannual summary of projected regulations, existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components. This agenda provides the public with information about DHS's regulatory and deregulatory activity. DHS expects that this information will enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, the Department's regulatory and deregulatory activity. DHS invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this agenda.
Please direct general comments and inquiries on the agenda to the Regulatory Affairs Law Division, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0485, Washington, DC 20528-0485.
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual actions identified in this agenda to the individual listed in the summary portion as the point of contact for that action.
DHS provides this notice pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, Sept. 19, 1980) and Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (Sept. 30, 1993) as incorporated in Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011) and Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (Jan. 30, 2017), which require the Department to publish a semiannual agenda of regulations. The regulatory agenda is a summary of existing and projected regulations as well as actions completed since the publication of the last regulatory agenda for the Department. DHS's last semiannual regulatory agenda was published on August 24, 2017, at 82 FR 40290.
Beginning in fall 2007, the internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires Federal agencies to publish their regulatory flexibility agendas in the
The semiannual agenda of the Department conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center.
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636-15, 301 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20528,
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636-15, 301 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20528,
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636-15, 301 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20528,
RIN: 1625-AC39
Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch—Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Mardi Ruth Thompson, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Molly Stubbs, ICE Regulatory Coordinator, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20536,
Brad Tuttle, Attorney Advisor, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20536,
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In accordance with section 4(b) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended, HUD is publishing its agenda of regulations already issued or that are expected to be issued during the next several months. The agenda also includes rules currently in effect that are under review and describes those regulations that may affect small entities, as required by section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The purpose of publication of the agenda is to encourage more effective public participation in the regulatory process by providing the public with advance information about pending regulatory activities.
Aaron Santa Anna, Assistant General Counsel for Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500; telephone number 202-708-3055. (This is not a toll-free number.) A telecommunications device for hearing- and speech-impaired individuals (TTY) is available at 800-877-8339 (Federal Relay Service).
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735), as amended, requires each department or agency to prepare semiannually an agenda of: (1) Regulations that the department or agency has issued or expects to issue, and; (2) rules currently in effect that are under departmental or agency review. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires each department or agency to publish semiannually a regulatory agenda of rules expected to be proposed or promulgated that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of “small entities,” meaning small businesses, small organizations, or small governmental jurisdictions. Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act permit incorporation of the agenda required by these two authorities with any other prescribed agenda.
HUD's regulatory agenda combines the information required by Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As in the past, HUD's complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
The Department is subject to certain rulemaking requirements set forth in the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3531
HUD has attempted to list in this agenda all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication, except for minor and routine or repetitive actions, but some may have been inadvertently omitted, or may have arisen too late to be included in the published agenda. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this agenda. Also, where a date is provided for the next rulemaking action, the date is an estimate and is not a commitment to act on or by the date shown.
In some cases, HUD has withdrawn rules that were placed on previous agendas for which there has been no publication activity. Withdrawal of a rule does not necessarily mean that HUD will not proceed with the rulemaking. Withdrawal allows HUD to assess the subject matter further and determine whether rulemaking in that area is appropriate. Following such an assessment, the Department may determine that certain rules listed as withdrawn under this agenda are appropriate. If that determination is made, such rules will be included in a succeeding semiannual agenda.
In addition, for a few rules that have been published as proposed or interim rules and which, therefore, require further rulemaking, HUD has identified the timing of the next action stage as “undetermined.” These are rules that are still under review by HUD for which a determination and timing of the next action stage have not yet been made.
Since the purpose of publication of the agenda is to encourage more effective public participation in the regulatory process by providing the public with early information about the Department's future regulatory actions, HUD invites all interested members of the public to comment on the rules listed in the agenda.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This notice provides the semiannual agenda of rules scheduled for review or development between fall 2017 and fall 2018. The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 require publication of the agenda.
Unless otherwise indicated, all agency contacts are located at the Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.
You should direct all comments and inquiries about these rules to the appropriate agency contact. You should direct general comments relating to the agenda to the Office of Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, at the address above or at 202-208-3181.
With this publication, the Department satisfies the requirement of Executive Order 12866 that the Department publish an agenda of rules that we have issued or expect to issue and of currently effective rules that we have scheduled for review.
Simultaneously, the Department meets the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions includes The Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
Department of Justice.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Justice is publishing its fall 2017 regulatory agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 612 (1988).
Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, Room 4252, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514-8059.
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions includes The Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the internet has been the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Office of the Secretary, Labor.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The internet has become the means for disseminating the entirety of the Department of Labor's semiannual regulatory agenda. However, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires publication of a regulatory flexibility agenda in the
Laura M. Dawkins, Director, Office of Regulatory and Programmatic Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, RoomS-2312, Washington, DC 20210; (202) 693-5959.
Information pertaining to a specific regulation can be obtained from the agency contact listed for that particular regulation.
Executive Order 12866 requires the semiannual publication of an agenda of regulations that contains a listing of all the regulations the Department of Labor expects to have under active consideration for promulgation, proposal, or review during the coming one-year period. The entirety of the Department's semiannual agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires DOL to publish in the
All interested members of the public are invited and encouraged to let departmental officials know how our regulatory efforts can be improved, and are invited to participate in and comment on the review or development of the regulations listed on the Department's agenda.
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Regulatory Agenda).
The Regulatory and Deregulatory Agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. The intent of the Agenda is to provide the public with information about the Department of Transportation's regulatory activity planned for the next 12 months. It is expected that this information will enable the public to more effectively participate in the Department's regulatory process. The public is also invited to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on the Agenda in general to Jonathan Moss, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, Office of General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-4723.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on particular items in the Agenda to the individual listed for the regulation or the general rulemaking contact person for the operating administration in appendix B.
A primary goal of the Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) is to allow the public to understand how we make decisions, which necessarily includes being transparent in the way we measure the risks, costs, and benefits of engaging in—or deciding not to engage in—a particular regulatory action. As such, it is our policy to provide an opportunity for public comment on such actions to all interested stakeholders. Above all, transparency and meaningful engagement mandate that regulations should be straightforward, clear, and accessible to any interested stakeholder. The Department also embraces the notion that there should be no more regulations than necessary. We emphasize consideration of non-regulatory solutions and have rigorous processes in place for continual reassessment of existing regulations. These processes provide that regulations and other agency actions are periodically reviewed and, if appropriate, are revised to ensure that they continue to meet the needs for which they were originally designed, and that they remain cost-effective and cost-justified.
To help the Department achieve its goals and in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” (58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993) and the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979), the Department prepares a semiannual regulatory and deregulatory agenda. It summarizes all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. These are matters on which action has begun or is projected during the next 12 months or for which action has been completed since the last Agenda.
In addition, this Agenda was prepared in accordance with three new Executive orders issued by President Trump, which directed agencies to further scrutinize their regulations and other agency actions. On January 30, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. Under Section 2(a) of the Executive order, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. Under this Executive order, each agency must establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF) to evaluate existing regulations, and make recommendations for their repeal, replacement, or modification. On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, requiring agencies to review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and other similar agency actions that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources.
In response to the mandate in Executive Order 13777, the Department formed an RRTF consisting of senior career and non-career leaders, which has already conducted extensive reviews of existing regulations, and identified a number of rules to be repealed, replaced, or modified. While each regulatory and deregulatory action is evaluated on its own merits, the RRTF augments the Department's consideration of prospective rulemakings by conducting monthly reviews across all OAs to identify appropriate deregulatory actions. The RRTF also works to ensure that any new regulatory action is rigorously vetted and non-regulatory alternatives are considered. Further information on the RRTF can be found online at:
The Department's ongoing regulatory effort is guided by four fundamental principles—safety, innovation, investment in infrastructure, and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. These priorities are grounded in our national interest in maintaining U.S. global leadership in safety, innovation, and economic growth. To accomplish our regulatory goals, we must create a regulatory environment that fosters growth in new and innovative industries without burdening them with unnecessary restrictions. At the same time, safety remains our highest priority; we must remain focused on managing safety risks and be sure that we do not regress from the successes already achieved. Our planned regulatory actions reflect a careful balance that emphasizes the
The Agendas are based on reports submitted by the offices initiating the rulemaking and are reviewed by OST.
The internet is the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
Because publication in the
1. The agency's Agenda preamble;
2. Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
3. Any rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. These elements are: Sequence Number; Title; Section 610 Review, if applicable; Legal Authority; Abstract; Timetable; Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required; Agency Contact; and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN). Additional information (for detailed list, see section heading “Explanation of Information on the Agenda”) on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet.
The Agenda covers all rules and regulations of the Department. Subsets of these rules have been classified as significant rules under E.O. 12866 and will be subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
An Office of Management and Budget memorandum, dated August 18, 2017, requires the format for this Agenda.
First, the Agenda is divided by initiating offices. Then the Agenda is divided into five categories: (1) Prerule stage, (2) proposed rule stage, (3) final rule stage, (4) long-term actions, and (5) completed actions. For each entry, the Agenda provides the following information: (1) Its “significance”; (2) a short, descriptive title; (3) its legal basis; (4) the related regulatory citation in the Code of Federal Regulations; (5) any legal deadline and, if so, for what action (
For nonsignificant regulations issued routinely and frequently as a part of an established body of technical requirements (such as the Federal Aviation Administration's Airspace Rules), to keep those requirements operationally current, we only include the general category of the regulations, the identity of a contact office or official, and an indication of the expected number of regulations; we do not list individual regulations.
In the “Timetable” column, we use abbreviations to indicate the particular documents being considered. ANPRM stands for Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, SNPRM for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and NPRM for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Listing a future date in this column does not mean we have made a decision to issue a document; it is the earliest date on which a rulemaking document may publish. In addition, these dates are based on current schedules. Information received after the issuance of this Agenda could result in a decision not to take regulatory action or in changes to proposed publication dates. For example, the need for further evaluation could result in a later publication date; evidence of a greater need for the regulation could result in an earlier publication date.
Finally, a dot (•) preceding an entry indicates that the entry appears in the Agenda for the first time.
Our Agenda is intended primarily for the use of the public. Since its inception, we have made modifications and refinements that we believe provide the public with more helpful information, as well as making the Agenda easier to use. We would like you, the public, to make suggestions or comments on how the Agenda could be further improved.
We also seek your suggestions on which of our existing regulations you believe need to be reviewed to determine whether they should be revised or revoked. We particularly draw your attention to the Department's review plan in appendix D.
The Department is especially interested in obtaining information on requirements that have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” and, therefore, must be reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. If you have any suggested regulations, please submit them to us, along with your explanation of why they should be reviewed.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, comments are specifically invited on regulations that we have targeted for review under section 610 of the Act. The phrase (sec. 610 Review) appears at the end of the title for these reviews. Please see appendix D for the Department's section 610 review plans.
Executive Orders 13132 and 13175 require us to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input” by State, local, and tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism or tribal implications. These policies are defined in the Executive orders to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects” on States or Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and them, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and various levels of Government or Indian tribes. Therefore, we encourage State and local Governments or Indian tribes to provide us with information about how the Department's rulemakings impact them.
The Department is publishing this regulatory Agenda in the
To obtain a copy of a specific regulatory document in the Agenda, you should communicate directly with the contact person listed with the regulation at the address below. We note that most, if not all, such documents, including the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, are available through the internet at
The following is a list of persons who can be contacted within the Department for general information concerning the rulemaking process within the various operating administrations.
FAA—Lirio Liu, Director, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-7833.
FHWA—Jennifer Outhouse, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0761.
FMCSA—Steven J. LaFreniere, Regulatory Ombudsman, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0596.
NHTSA—Steve Wood, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2992.
FRA—Elliott Gillooly, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 493-6047.
FTA—Chaya Koffman, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-3101.
SLSDC—Carrie Mann Lavigne, Chief Counsel, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, NY 13662; telephone (315) 764-3200.
PHMSA—Stephen Gordon, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-1101.
MARAD—Gabriel Chavez, Office of Chief Counsel, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2621.
OST—Jonathan Moss, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-4723.
All comments via the internet are submitted through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at the following address:
The public also may review regulatory dockets at or deliver comments on proposed rulemakings to the Dockets Office at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, 1-800-647-5527. Working Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Department of Transportation has long recognized the importance of regularly reviewing its existing regulations to determine whether they need to be revised or revoked. Our Regulatory Policies and Procedures require such reviews. We also have responsibilities under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (January 18, 2011), E.O. 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” E.O. 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda,” and section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to conduct such reviews. This includes the designation of a Regulatory Reform Officer, the establishment of a Regulatory Reform Task Force, and the use of plain language techniques in new rules and considering its use in existing rules when we have the opportunity and resources to revise them. We are committed to continuing our reviews of existing rules and, if it is needed, will initiate rulemaking actions based on these reviews. The Department will begin a new 10-year review cycle with the Fall 2018 Agenda.
Section 610 requires that we conduct reviews of rules that: (1) Have been published within the last 10 years, and (2) have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (SEIOSNOSE). It also requires that we publish in the
Some reviews may be conducted earlier than scheduled. For example, to the extent resources permit, the plain language reviews will be conducted more quickly. Other events, such as accidents, may result in the need to conduct earlier reviews of some rules. Other factors may also result in the need to make changes; for example, we may make changes in response to public comment on this plan or in response to a presidentially mandated review. If there is any change to the review plan, we will note the change in the following Agenda. For any section 610 review, we will provide the required notice prior to the review.
Generally, the agencies have divided their rules into 10 different groups and plan to analyze one group each year. For purposes of these reviews, a year will coincide with the fall-to-fall schedule for publication of the Agenda. Most agencies provide historical information about the reviews that have occurred over the past 10 years. Thus, Year 1 (2008) begins in the fall of 2008 and ends in the fall of 2009; Year 2 (2009) begins in the fall of 2009 and ends in the fall of 2010, and so on. The exception to this general rule is the FAA, which provides information about the reviews it completed for this year and prospective information about the reviews it intends to complete in the next 10 years. Thus, for FAA Year 1 (2017) begins in the fall of 2017 and ends in the fall of 2018; Year 2 (2018) begins in the fall of 2018 and ends in the fall of 2019, and so on. We request
The agency will analyze each of the rules in a given year's group to determine whether any rule has a SEIOSNOSE and, thus, requires review in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The level of analysis will, of course, depend on the nature of the rule and its applicability. Publication of agencies' section 610 analyses listed each fall in this Agenda provides the public with notice and an opportunity to comment consistent with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We request that public comments be submitted to us early in the analysis year concerning the small entity impact of the rules to help us in making our determinations.
In each fall Agenda, the agency will publish the results of the analyses it has completed during the previous year. For rules that had a negative finding on SEIOSNOSE, we will give a short explanation (
The agency will also examine the specified rules to determine whether any other reasons exist for revising or revoking the rule or for rewriting the rule in plain language. In each fall Agenda, the agency will also publish information on the results of the examinations completed during the previous year.
The Agenda identifies the pending DOT section 610 Reviews by inserting “(Section 610 Review)” after the title for the specific entry. For further information on the pending reviews, see the Agenda entries at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has elected to use the two-step, two-year process used by most Department of Transportation (DOT) modes in past plans. As such, the FAA has divided its rules into 10 groups as displayed in the table below. During the first year (the “
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended (RFA), (§§ 601 through 612 of Title 5, United States Code (5 U.S.C.)) requires Federal regulatory agencies to analyze all proposed and final rules to determine their economic impact on small entities, which includes small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The primary purpose of the RFA is to establish as a principle of regulatory issuance that Federal agencies endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule
Section 610 of 5 U.S.C. requires government agencies to periodically review all regulations that will have a SEISNOSE. The FAA must analyze each rule within 10 years of its publication date.
The RFA does not define “significant economic impact.” Therefore, there is no clear rule or number to determine when a significant economic impact occurs. However, the Small Business Administration (SBA) states that significance should be determined by considering the size of the business, the size of the competitor's business, and the impact the same regulation has on larger competitors.
Likewise, the RFA does not define “substantial number.” However, the legislative history of the RFA suggests that a substantial number must be at least one but does not need to be an overwhelming percentage such as more than half. The SBA states that the substantiality of the number of small businesses affected should be determined on an industry-specific basis.
This analysis consisted of the following three steps:
• Review of the number of small entities affected by the amendments to parts 417 through 460.
• Identification and analysis of all amendments to parts 417 through 460 since 2007 to determine whether any still have or now have a SEISNOSE.
• Review of the FAA Office of Aviation Policy, and Plans regulatory flexibility assessment of each amendment performed as required by the RFA.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted regulations in title 23 of the CFR, chapter I, related to the Federal-Aid Highway Program. These regulations implement and carry out the provisions of Federal law relating to the administration of Federal aid for highways. The primary law authorizing Federal aid for highway is chapter I of title 23 of the U.S.C. 145 of title 23, expressly provides for a federally assisted State program. For this reason, the regulations adopted by the FHWA in title 23 of the CFR primarily relate to the requirements that States must meet to receive Federal funds for the construction and other work related to highways. Because the regulations in title 23 primarily relate to States, which are not defined as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the FHWA believes that its regulations in title 23 do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FHWA solicits public comment on this preliminary conclusion.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
However, there are special limitations on planning assistance and program operations assistance. No appropriations are currently available for providing the assistance. FRA is currently evaluating whether 49 CFR part 266 should be rescinded because FRA does not anticipate future funding of the programs concerned.
•
•
•
•
•
•
This rulemaking action is part of our ongoing biennial process to harmonize the HMR with international regulations and standards. Federal law and policy strongly favor the harmonization of domestic and international standards for hazardous materials transportation. The Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101
Harmonization facilitates international trade by minimizing the costs and other burdens of complying with multiple or inconsistent safety requirements for transportation of hazardous materials. Safety is enhanced by creating a uniform framework for compliance, and as the volume of hazardous materials transported in international commerce continues to grow, harmonization becomes increasingly important.
The impact that it will have on small entities is not expected to be significant. The final rule clarified provisions based on PHMSA's initiatives and correspondence with the regulated community and domestic and international stakeholders. The changes are generally intended to provide relief and, as a result, marginal positive economic benefits to shippers, carriers, and packaging manufacturers and testers, including small entities. These benefits are not at a level that can be considered economically significant.
Consequently, this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. PHMSA's plain language review of this rule indicates no need for substantial revision.
•
•
Department of the Treasury.
Semiannual regulatory agenda and annual regulatory plan.
This notice is given pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), which require the publication by the Department of a semiannual agenda of regulations. E.O. 12866 also requires the publication by the Department of a regulatory plan for the upcoming fiscal year. The purpose of the agenda is to provide advance information about pending regulatory activities and encourage public participation in the regulatory process.
The Agency Contact identified in the item relating to that regulation.
The semiannual regulatory agenda includes regulations that the Department has issued or expects to issue and rules currently in effect that are under departmental or bureau review. For this edition of the regulatory agenda, the most important significant regulatory actions and a Statement of Regulatory Priorities are included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the internet has been the primary medium for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
(1) Rules that are in the regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that have been identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
The Department has listed in this agenda all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication, except for technical, minor, and routine actions. On occasion, a regulatory matter may be inadvertently left off of the agenda or an emergency may arise that requires the Department to initiate a regulatory action not yet on the agenda. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this agenda. For most entries, Treasury includes a projected date for the next rulemaking action; however, the date is an estimate and is not a commitment to publish on the projected date. In addition, some agenda entries are marked as “withdrawn” when there has been no publication activity. Withdrawal of a rule from the agenda does not necessarily mean that a rule will not be included in a future agenda but may mean that further consideration is warranted and that the regulatory action is unlikely in the next 12 months.
Public participation in the rulemaking process is the foundation of effective regulations. For this reason, the Department invites comments on all regulatory and de-regulatory items included in the agenda and invites input on items that should be included in the semiannual agenda.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board submits the following agenda of proposed regulatory activities which may be conducted by the agency during the next 12 months. This regulatory agenda may be revised by the agency during the coming months as a result of action taken by the Board.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.
For information concerning Board regulations and proposed actions, contact Gretchen Jacobs, General Counsel, (202) 272-0040 (voice) or (202) 272-0062 (TTY).
Environmental Protection Agency.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the semiannual regulatory agenda online (the e-Agenda) at
• Regulations in the semiannual regulatory agenda that are under development, completed, or canceled since the last agenda; and
• Reviews of regulations with small business impacts under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
If you have questions or comments about a particular action, please get in touch with the agency contact listed in each agenda entry. If you have general questions about the semiannual regulatory agenda, please contact: Caryn Muellerleile (
EPA is committed to a regulatory strategy that effectively achieves the Agency's mission of protecting the environment and the health, welfare, and safety of Americans while also supporting economic growth, job creation, competitiveness, and innovation. EPA publishes the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda to update the public about regulatory activity undertaken in support of this mission. In the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, EPA provides notice of our plans to review, propose, and issue regulations.
Additionally, EPA's Semiannual Regulatory Agenda includes information about rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and review of those regulations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
In this document, EPA explains in greater detail the types of actions and information available in the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda and actions that are currently undergoing review specifically for impacts on small entities.
“E-Agenda,” “online regulatory agenda,” and “semiannual regulatory agenda” all refer to the same comprehensive collection of information that, until 2007, was published in the
“Regulatory Flexibility Agenda” refers to a document that contains information about regulations that may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue to publish this document in the
“Unified Regulatory Agenda” refers to the collection of all agencies' agendas with an introduction prepared by the Regulatory Information Service Center facilitated by the General Service Administration.
“Regulatory Agenda Preamble” refers to the document you are reading now. It appears as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and introduces both EPA's Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and the e-Agenda.
“610 Review” as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act means a periodic review within ten years of promulgating a final rule that has or may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA maintains a list of these actions at
A number of environmental laws authorize EPA's actions, including but not limited to:
• Clean Air Act (CAA),
• Clean Water Act (CWA),
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund),
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Not only must EPA comply with environmental laws, but also administrative legal requirements that apply to the issuance of regulations, such as: the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), and the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
EPA also meets a number of requirements contained in numerous Executive Orders: 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017); 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011); 12898, “Environmental Justice” (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994); 13045, “Children's Health Protection” (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997); 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999); 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000); 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
You can make your voice heard by getting in touch with the contact person provided in each agenda entry. EPA encourages you to participate as early in the process as possible. You may also participate by commenting on proposed rules published in the
Instructions on how to submit your comments through
EPA believes its actions will be more cost effective and protective if the development process includes stakeholders working with us to help identify the most practical and effective solutions to environmental problems. EPA encourages you to become involved in its rule and policymaking process. For more information about EPA's efforts to increase transparency, participation and collaboration in EPA activities, please visit
EPA includes regulations in the e-Agenda. However, there is no legal significance to the omission of an item from the agenda, and EPA generally does not include the following categories of actions:
• Administrative actions such as delegations of authority, changes of address, or phone numbers;
• Under the CAA: Revisions to state implementation plans; equivalent methods for ambient air quality monitoring; deletions from the new source performance standards source categories list; delegations of authority to states; area designations for air quality planning purposes;
• Under FIFRA: Registration-related decisions, actions affecting the status of currently registered pesticides, and data call-ins;
• Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Actions regarding pesticide tolerances and food additive regulations;
• Under RCRA: Authorization of State solid waste management plans; hazardous waste delisting petitions;
• Under the CWA: State Water Quality Standards; deletions from the section 307(a) list of toxic pollutants; suspensions of toxic testing requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); delegations of NPDES authority to States;
• Under SDWA: Actions on State underground injection control programs.
Meanwhile, the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda includes:
• Actions likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
• Rules the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the RFA. EPA has one ongoing 610 review at this time.
Online, you can choose how to sort the agenda entries by specifying the characteristics of the entries of interest in the desired individual data fields for both the
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1. Prerule Stage—EPA's prerule actions generally are intended to determine whether the agency should initiate rulemaking. Prerulemakings may include anything that influences or leads to rulemaking; this would include Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs), studies or analyses of the possible need for regulatory action.
2. Proposed Rule Stage— Proposed rulemaking actions include EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemakings (NPRMs); these proposals are scheduled to publish in the
3. Final Rule Stage—Final rulemaking actions are those actions that EPA is scheduled to finalize and publish in the
4. Long-Term Actions—This section includes rulemakings for which the next scheduled regulatory action (such as publication of a NPRM or final rule) is twelve or more months into the future. We urge you to explore becoming involved even if an action is listed in the Long-Term category.
5. Completed Actions—EPA's completed actions are those that have been promulgated and published in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Agenda entries include only the nine categories of information that are required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and by
E-Agenda entries include:
a. Economically Significant: Under Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
b. Other Significant: A rulemaking that is not economically significant but is considered significant for other reasons. This category includes rules that may:
1. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
2. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients; or
3. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles in Executive Order 12866.
c. Substantive, Nonsignificant: A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is not Significant, Routine and Frequent, or Informational/Administrative/Other.
d. Routine and Frequent: A rulemaking that is a specific case of a recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations (
e. Informational/Administrative/Other: An action that is primarily informational or pertains to an action outside the scope of E.O. 12866.
a. Deregulatory: When finalized, an action is expected to have total costs less than zero;
b. Regulatory: The action is either
(i) a significant regulatory action as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, or
(ii) a significant guidance document (
c. Fully or Partially Exempt: The action has been granted, or is expected to be granted, a full or partial waiver under one or more of the following circumstances:
(i) It is expressly exempt by E.O. 13771 (issued with respect to a “military, national security, or foreign affairs function of the United States”; or related to “agency organization, management, or personnel”), or
(ii) it addresses an emergency such as critical health, safety, financial, or non-exempt national security matters (offset requirements may be exempted or delayed), or
(iii) it is required to meet a statutory or judicial deadline (offset requirements may be exempted or delayed), or
(iv) expected to generate de minimis costs;
d. Not subject to, not significant: Is a NPRM or final rule AND is neither an E.O. 13771 regulatory action nor an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action;
e. Other: At the time of designation, either the available information is too preliminary to determine E.O. 13771 status or other reasonable circumstances preclude a preliminary E.O. 13771 designation.
f. Independent agency: Is an action an independent agency anticipates issuing and thus is not subject to E.O. 13771.
The
Some actions listed in the Agenda include a URL for an EPA-maintained website that provides additional information about the action.
When EPA publishes either an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Section 610 of the RFA requires that an agency review, within 10 years of promulgation, each rule that has or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. At this time, EPA has one ongoing 610 review.
EPA established an official public docket for this 610 Review. EPA is no longer accepting comment on the review itself, but comments received in 2016 can be accessed at
For each of EPA's rulemakings, consideration is given to whether there will be any adverse impact on any small entity. EPA attempts to fit the regulatory requirements, to the extent feasible, to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation.
Under RFA as amended by SBREFA, the Agency must prepare a formal analysis of the potential negative impacts on small entities, convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (proposed rule stage), and prepare a Small Entity Compliance Guide (final rule stage) unless the Agency certifies a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For more detailed information about the Agency's policy and practice with respect to implementing RFA/SBREFA, please visit EPA's RFA/SBREFA website at
Finally, we would like to thank those of you who choose to join with us in making progress on the complex issues involved in protecting human health and the environment. Collaborative efforts such as EPA's open rulemaking process are a valuable tool for addressing the problems we face, and the regulatory agenda is an important part of that process.
Kathy Franklin, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 5104A, Washington, DC 20460,
Michelle Price, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Code 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
General Services Administration (GSA).
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
We are publishing our fall 2017 regulatory agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (1993), with particular adherence to E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Costs,” 82 FR 9339 (2017), E.O. 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” 82 FR 12285, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 612. The purpose of publishing this agenda is to give notice of regulatory activity being undertaken by GSA in order to provide the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.
Please direct all general comments and inquiries to Francis Poe, Acting Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. For comments on specific regulatory actions, please contact the person identified as the point of contact for that action.
The information provided in the Unified Agenda (Agenda) previews the rulemaking activities that we expect to undertake in the immediate future. The Agenda focuses primarily on those actions expected to result in publication of Advanced Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, or Final Rules within the next 12 months.
GSA is not a major regulatory agency outside of its work as a member of the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council and does not have regulatory actions that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
A fully searchable e-Agenda is available for viewing in its entirety at
Francis Poe, Acting Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division at (202) 501-4755.
The current FAR and GSAR do not have detailed coverage differentiating for various construction project delivery methods, although there is some guidance regarding source selection. GSA unique policies on CMc have been previously issued through other means. By incorporating these policies into the GSAR and differentiating for various construction methods, the GSAR will provide centralized guidance to ensure consistent application of construction project principles across the organization.
Cybersecurity requirements for internal contractor systems, external contractor systems, cloud systems, and mobile systems will be covered by this rule. It will also update existing GSAR provision 552.239-70, Information Technology Security Plan and Security Authorization and GSAR clause 552.239-71, Security Requirements for Unclassified Information Technology Resources to only require the provision and clause when the contract will involve information or information systems connected to a GSA network.
This rule establishes a contractor's responsibility to report any cyber incident where the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of GSA information or information systems are potentially compromised or where the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of information or information systems owned or managed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government is potentially compromised. It establishes an explicit timeframe for reporting cyber incidents, details the required elements of a cyber incident report, and provides the required Government's points of contact for submitting the cyber incident report.
The rule also outlines the additional contractor requirements that may apply for any cyber incidents involving personally identifiable information. In addition, the rule clarifies both GSA and ordering agencies' authority to access contractor systems in the event of a cyber incident. It also establishes the role of GSA in the cyber incident reporting process and outlines how the primary response agency for a cyber incident is determined. In addition, it establishes the requirement for the contractor to preserve images of affected systems and ensure contractor employees receive appropriate training for reporting cyber incidents. The rule also outlines how contractor attributional/proprietary information provided as part of the cyber incident reporting process will be protected and used.
The changes fall into five categories: (1) Incorporating existing Agency policy previously issued through other means, (2) reorganizing to better align with the FAR, (3) incorporating Agency unique clauses, (4) incorporating supplemental material, and (5) editing for clarity.
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This semiannual Regulatory Agenda (Agenda) is a summary of current and projected regulatory and deregulatory actions and completed actions of the Small Business Administration (SBA). SBA expects that this summary information will enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, SBA's regulatory and deregulatory activities. SBA invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
Please direct general comments or inquiries to Imelda A. Kish, Law Librarian, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6849,
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual regulatory activities identified in this Agenda to the individual listed in the summary of the regulation as the point of contact for that regulation. Timely public comment for any rule may be submitted at the government-wide e-government website,
SBA is fully committed to implementing the Administration's regulatory reform policies, as established by Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017) and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda (February 24, 2017). In order to fully implement the goal of these executive orders, SBA seeks feedback from the public in identifying any SBA regulations that affected parties believe impose unnecessary burdens or costs that exceed their benefits; eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation; or are ineffective or outdated.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires SBA to publish in the
Additional information on these rules and on all other rulemakings SBA expects to consider is included in the Federal Government's complete Unified Agenda, which will be available online at
This rule makes four changes to the Surety Bond Guarantee (SBG) Program. The first changes the threshold for notification to SBA of changes in the contract or bond amount. Second, the change requires sureties to submit quarterly contract completion reports. Third, SBA is increasing the eligible contract limit for the Quick Bond Application and Agreement from $250,000 to $400,000. Finally, the rule increases the guarantee percentage in the Preferred Surety Bond program to reflect the statutory change made by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2016. The guarantee percentage increases from 70 percent to 80 percent or 90 percent, depending on contract size and socioeconomic factors currently in effect in the Prior Approval Program.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of regulations being developed by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council pursuant to Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (1993), with particular adherence to EO 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Costs,” 82 FR 9339 (2017), EO 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” 82 FR 12285, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 612. The purpose of publishing this agenda is to give notice of regulatory activity being undertaken by FAR Council in order to provide the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.
Lois Mandell, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001, 202-501-2735.
DoD, GSA, and NASA, under the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Act (41 U.S.C. 1303) and the agencies' several statutory authorities, jointly issue and maintain the FAR through periodic issuance of changes published in the
The electronic version of the FAR, including changes, can be accessed on the FAR website at
The information provided in the Unified Agenda (Agenda) previews the rulemaking activities that we expect to undertake in the immediate future. The Agenda focuses primarily on those actions expected to result in publication of Advanced Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, or Final Rules within the next 12 months.
A fully searchable e-Agenda is available for viewing in its entirety at
This rule establishes a practice that will ensure that prices are fair and reasonable at the time the order is placed under the GSA's Federal Supply Schedules. This government-wide FAR rule will ensure uniform implementation of this FAR change across FAR-based contracts and avoid the proliferation of agency-wide rules and actions (
In its final rule, SBA has clarified that, as a general matter, its small business contracting regulations apply regardless of the place of performance. In light of these changes, there is a need to amend the FAR both to bring its coverage into alignment with SBA's regulation and to give agencies the tools they need especially the ability to use set-asides to maximize opportunities for small businesses overseas.
SBA intends to include contracts performed outside of the United States in agencies' prime contracting goals beginning in FY 2016. Although inclusion for goaling purposes is not dependent on FAR changes, amending FAR part 19 will allow agencies to take advantage of the tools authorized for providing small business opportunities for contracts awarded outside of the United States.
This rule will allow agencies to take advantage of the tools authorized for providing small business opportunities for contracts awarded outside of the United States. This will make it easier for small businesses to receive additional opportunities for contracts performed outside of the United States.
The rule will raise the visibility of these strategic sourcing solutions, the analysis used when not using an FSSI contract vehicle, promote their use, and help to better leverage the Government's buying power when using FSSI vehicles. Strategic Sourcing drives both dollar savings and process improvements. The Federal Government, suppliers and ultimately the U.S. taxpayers benefit when government can better articulate its requirements and provide committed purchase volumes, and in return, industry suppliers can provide better pricing and more valuable solutions.
Multiple-award contracts, due to their inherent flexibility, competitive nature, and administrative efficiency, are commonly used in Federal procurement. They have proven to be an effective means of contracting for large quantities of supplies and services for which the quantity and delivery requirements cannot be definitively determined at contract award. However, prior to 2011, the FAR was largely silent on the use of acquisition strategies to promote small business participation in conjunction with multiple-award contracts. This rule increases small business participation in Federal prime contracts by ensuring that small businesses have greater access to multiple award contracts and clarifying the procedures for partially setting aside and reserving multiple-award contracts for small business, and setting aside orders placed under multiple-award contracts for small business, thereby ensuring that small businesses have greater access to these commonly used vehicles.
This rule provides for a uniform policy for the Federal Government to prohibit Federal contractors from discriminating against employees and job applicants who inquire about, discuss, or disclose their own compensation or the compensation of other employees or applicants.
This rule implements the Department of Labor (DOL) interim final rule published in the
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to be consistent with the guidance in SBA regulations at 13 CFR 124 8(A) Business Development/Small Disadvantaged Business Status Determinations (77 FR 28237). These clarifications are expected to relieve burden on both industry and government by reducing the number of protests related to inappropriate elimination from competition of offers from 8(a) joint ventures and inappropriate awards to ineligible 8(a) joint ventures. This will reduce the risk for fraud by clarifying the role of SBA as the authority for making eligibility determination. The rule is also expected to facilitate competition by clarifying the circumstances under which a joint venture is eligible for award under the 8(a) program.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”), in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, is publishing a semiannual agenda of rulemakings that the Commission expects to propose or promulgate over the next year. The Commission welcomes comments from small entities and others on the agenda.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, (202) 418-5964,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601,
(1) A brief description of the subject area of any rule that the agency expects to propose or promulgate, which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(2) A summary of the nature of any such rule under consideration for each subject area listed in the agenda, the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing action on any rule for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and
(3) The name and telephone number of an agency official knowledgeable about the items listed in the agenda.
Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an agenda of rulemakings that it presently expects may be considered during the course of the next year. Subject to a determination for each rule, it is possible as a general matter that some of these rules may have some impact on small entities.
The Commission's Fall 2017 regulatory flexibility agenda is included in the
David E. Aron, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581,
Owen Kopon, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581,
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or Bureau) is publishing this agenda as part of the Fall 2017 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The CFPB reasonably anticipates having the regulatory matters identified below under consideration during the period from November 1, 2017 to October 31, 2018. The next agenda will be published in spring 2018 and will update this agenda through fall 2018. Publication of this agenda is in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This information is current as of September 28, 2017.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.
A staff contact is included for each regulatory item listed herein.
The CFPB is publishing its Fall 2017 Agenda as part of the Fall 2017 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda lists the regulatory matters that the CFPB reasonably anticipates having under consideration during the period from November 1, 2017, to October 31, 2018, as described further below.
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (Dodd-Frank Act), the CFPB has rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, and other authorities relating to consumer financial products and services. These authorities include the ability to issue regulations under more than a dozen Federal consumer financial laws, which transferred to the CFPB from seven Federal agencies on July 21, 2011. The Bureau's general purpose, as specified in section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act, is to implement and enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive.
The CFPB is working on a wide range of initiatives to address issues in markets for consumer financial products and services that are not reflected in this notice because the Unified Agenda is limited to rulemaking activities. Section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act specifies the objectives of the Bureau, including providing consumers with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions; protecting consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination; addressing outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations; enforcing Federal consumer financial law consistently in order to promote fair competition, without regard to the status of a covered person as a depository institution; and promoting the transparent and efficient operation of markets for consumer financial products and services to facilitate access and innovation. The CFPB's regulatory work in pursuit of those objectives can be grouped into three main categories: (1) Implementing statutory directives; (2) other efforts to address market failures, facilitate fair competition among financial services providers, and improve consumer understanding; and (3) modernizing, clarifying, and streamlining consumer financial regulations to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens.
Much of the Bureau's rulemaking work is focusing on implementing directives mandated in the Dodd-Frank Act and other statutes. As part of these rulemakings, the Bureau is working to achieve the consumer protection objectives of the statutes while minimizing regulatory burden on financial services providers and facilitating a smooth implementation process for both industry and consumers.
For example, the Bureau is continuing efforts to facilitate implementation of critical consumer protections under the Dodd-Frank Act that guard against mortgage market practices that contributed to the nation's most significant financial crisis in several decades. Since 2013, the Bureau has issued regulations as directed by the Dodd-Frank Act to implement certain protections for mortgage originations and servicing, integrate various Federal mortgage disclosures, and amend mortgage reporting requirements under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). The Bureau is conducting follow-up rulemakings as warranted to address issues that have arisen during the implementation process for these rules and to provide greater clarification and certainty to financial services providers. The Bureau has three such efforts underway at this time:
• In August, the Bureau finalized amendments to Regulation C to facilitate implementation of a rule it issued in 2015 to effectuate Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA. The amendments included a number of clarifications, technical corrections, and minor changes to the HMDA regulation, which largely takes effect in 2018, as well as temporarily changing the reporting threshold for open-end lines of credit. The Bureau issued a final rule in September amending Regulation B, which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), that also concerns data collection. The Bureau is also continuing to work closely with industry and other regulators to streamline and modernize HMDA data collection and reporting in conjunction with implementation of the Dodd-Frank amendments. For example, the Bureau in September sought comment on draft guidance for what HMDA information will be released to the general public in light of privacy concerns as specified in the Dodd-Frank Act.
• The Bureau is expecting to issue a proposed rule and an interim final rule in early October to address narrow issues concerning the timing of certain mortgage servicing disclosure requirements. The proposed rule and interim final rule relate to concerns raised by industry participants in connection with the mortgage servicing rule that the Bureau issued in August 2016, under Regulation X, which implements the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).
• The Bureau is seeking comment on a follow up rulemaking concerning certain consolidated mortgage disclosures that consumers receive in connection with applying for and closing on a mortgage loan under the TILA and RESPA. The proposed amendments relate to when a creditor may compare charges paid by or imposed on the consumer to amounts disclosed on a Closing Disclosure, instead of a Loan Estimate, to determine
The Bureau is also working to implement section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amends ECOA to require financial institutions to report information concerning credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses. This rulemaking could provide critical information about how these businesses—which are critical engines for economic growth—access credit. The Bureau held a public hearing on this subject in spring 2017, and released a white paper summarizing preliminary research on the small business lending market. In May 2017, the Bureau also issued a Request for Information seeking public comment on, among other things, the types of credit products offered and the types of data currently collected by lenders in this market and the potential complexity, cost of, and privacy issues related to, small business data collection. The comment period closed on September 14, 2017. The information received will help the Bureau determine how to implement the rule efficiently while minimizing burdens on lenders.
The Bureau is considering rules in places where there are substantial market failures that make it difficult for consumers to engage in informed decision making and otherwise protect their own interests. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the Bureau to focus on activities that promote fair competition among financial services providers, which itself has substantial benefits for consumers.
For example, the Bureau released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in June 2016, building on several years of research documenting consumer harms from practices related to payday loans, auto title loans, and other similar credit products. In particular, the Bureau is concerned that product structure, lack of underwriting, and certain other lender practices are interfering with consumer decision making with regard to such products and trapping large numbers of consumers in extended cycles of debt that they do not expect. The Bureau is also concerned that certain lenders' payment collection practices are causing substantial harm to consumers, including substantial unexpected fees and heightened risk of losing their checking accounts. The Bureau received more than one million comments in response to the proposal and is carefully considering how best to address concerns raised in the proposal in a manner consistent with the Bureau's objectives under the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Bureau is also engaged in rulemaking activities regarding the debt collection market, which continues to be a top source of complaints to the Bureau. The Bureau is concerned that because consumers cannot choose their debt collectors or “vote with their feet,” they have less ability to protect themselves from harmful practices. In January 2017, the Bureau published the results of a survey of consumers about their experiences with debt collection. The Bureau has also received encouragement from industry to engage in rulemaking to resolve conflicts in case law and address issues of concern under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), such as the application of the 40-year-old statute to modern communication technologies. The Bureau released an outline of proposals under consideration in July 2016 concerning practices by companies that are “debt collectors” under the FDCPA, in advance of convening a panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy to consult with representatives of small businesses that might be affected by the rulemaking. The Bureau expects to release a proposed rule concerning FDCPA collectors' communications practices and consumer disclosures. The Bureau intends to follow up separately at a later time about concerns regarding information flows between creditors and FDCPA collectors and about potential rules to govern creditors that collect their own debts.
The Bureau is also engaged in policy analysis and further research initiatives in preparation for a potential rulemaking regarding overdraft programs on checking accounts. After several years of research, the Bureau believes that there are consumer protection concerns with regard to these programs. Consumers do not shop based on overdraft fee amounts and policies, and the market for overdraft services does not appear to be competitive. Under the current regulatory regime consumers can opt in to permit their financial institution to charge fees for ATM and point-of-sale debit overdrafts, but the complexity of the system may complicate consumer decision making. Despite widespread use of disclosure forms, the regime produces substantially different opt-in rates across different depository institutions and the Bureau's supervisory and enforcement work indicates that some institutions are aggressively steering consumers to opt in. The CFPB is engaged in consumer testing of revised opt-in forms and considering whether other regulatory changes may be warranted to enhance consumer decision making.
In addition, the Bureau is continuing rulemaking activities that will ensure meaningful supervision of non-bank financial services providers in order to create a more level playing field for depository and non-depository institutions. Under section 1024 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is authorized to supervise “larger participants” of markets for various consumer financial products and services as defined by Bureau rule. The Bureau has defined the threshold for larger participants in several markets in past rulemakings, and is now working to develop a proposed rule that would define non-bank “larger participants” in the market for personal loans, including consumer installment loans and vehicle title loans. The Bureau is also considering whether rules to require registration of these or other non-depository lenders would facilitate supervision, as has been suggested to the Bureau by both consumer advocates and industry groups.
The Bureau's October 2016 rulemaking concerning prepaid financial products also advanced fairness and consistency objectives by creating a uniform disclosure regime and providing basic protections similar to those enjoyed by users of debit cards and credit cards. In April 2017, the Bureau extended the general effective date of the rule to April 1, 2018. In June 2017, the Bureau issued a proposal that would make targeted changes to the 2016 prepaid rule to reduce implementation and compliance burdens on the industry and ensure consumer understanding of and access to these products. The Bureau expects to issue a final rule in fall 2017.
The Bureau's third group of activities concerns modernizing, streamlining, and clarifying consumer financial regulations and other activities to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens and facilitate consumer-friendly innovation and increased access to consumer financial markets as directed by the Dodd-Frank Act. Since most of
In addition to some of the projects mentioned above that advance these objectives, such as the HMDA processes modernization and debt collection rulemaking, the Bureau is pursuing a number of other research, policy, and rulemaking initiatives. For example, section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act specifically directs the Bureau to assess the effectiveness of significant rules five years after they are implemented, including seeking public comment. In spring and summer 2017, the Bureau published requests for comment on its plans to assess the effectiveness of mortgage servicing rules, rules implementing portions of the Dodd-Frank Act requiring mortgage lenders to assess consumers' ability to repay, and rules implementing provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act regulating remittance transfers sent by consumers located in the United States to international recipients. The Bureau has received comments on all three section 1022(d) assessment plans. The comments also included recommendations for modifying, expanding, or eliminating various aspects of the three rules at issue. The Bureau is conducting substantial research for each of the section 1022(d) assessments, collecting and analyzing quantitative data where feasible. It will publish reports of these section 1022(d) assessments by the statutory deadlines (October 2018 for remittance transfers, January 2019 for the mortgage rules described above). The findings in these reports will help the Bureau and the public evaluate the recommendations the Bureau received and inform the Bureau's decisions whether adjustments to rules are warranted.
The Bureau is also beginning work this fall on the first in a series of reviews of existing regulations that it inherited from other agencies through the transfer of authorities under the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau had previously sought feedback on the inherited rules as a whole,
For its first review, the Bureau expects to focus primarily on subparts B and G of Regulation Z, which implement TILA with respect to open-end credit generally and credit cards in particular. As part of this general effort, the Bureau is considering rules to modernize the Bureau's database of credit card agreements to reduce burden on issuers that submit credit card agreements to the Bureau and make the database more useful for consumers and the general public. The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act) requires credit card issuers to post their credit card agreements to their internet site, and submit those agreements to the Bureau to be posted on an internet site maintained by the Bureau. The Bureau believes an improved submission process and database would be more efficient for both industry and the Bureau and would allow consumers and the general public to access and analyze information more easily.
The Bureau has also launched several initiatives focusing on ways to facilitate technological and product innovation that could benefit consumers. These include the CFPB's Trial Disclosure Waiver Program, which is designed to implement the Bureau's authority under section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act to grant financial services providers temporary waivers to conduct controlled field experiments of consumer disclosures. In addition, the Bureau has published a policy to facilitate the issuance of “No Action Letters” indicating that Bureau staff has no present intention to recommend enforcement or supervisory action with respect to specific applicants who wish to provide innovative financial products or services that promise substantial consumer benefit but raise substantial uncertainty as to application of existing consumer financial laws.
In light of the feedback received in response to the RFIs and various other outreach to industry, consumer advocates, and other stakeholders, the Bureau has decided to add two new entries to its long-term regulatory agenda.
The Bureau has also launched an internal task force to coordinate and bolster the agency's continuing effort to fulfill its mandate to identify and relieve regulatory burdens, including with regard to small businesses, consistent with the Bureau's other objectives under section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The task force is currently engaged in reviewing ideas for reduction of regulatory burden that have been suggested by Bureau stakeholders.
Finally, the Bureau is continuing to conduct outreach and research to assess issues in various other markets for consumer financial products and services beyond those discussed above. As this work continues, the Bureau will evaluate possible policy responses, including possible rulemaking actions, taking into account the critical need for and effectiveness of various policy tools. The Bureau will update its regulatory agenda in spring 2018, to reflect the results of this further prioritization and planning.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In this document, the Commission publishes its semiannual regulatory flexibility agenda. In addition, this document includes an agenda of regulatory actions that the Commission expects to be under development or review by the agency during the next year. This document meets the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866. The Commission welcomes comments on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
Comments should be received in the Office of the Secretary on or before February 12, 2018.
Comments on the regulatory flexibility agenda should be captioned, “Regulatory Flexibility Agenda,” and emailed to:
For further information on the agenda, in general, contact Charu Krishnan, Directorate for Economic Analysis, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408;
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 to 612) contains several provisions intended to reduce unnecessary and disproportionate regulatory requirements on small businesses, small governmental organizations, and other small entities. Section 602 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 602) requires each agency to publish, twice each year, a regulatory flexibility agenda containing a brief description of the subject area of any rule expected to be proposed or promulgated, which is likely to have a “significant economic impact” on a “substantial number” of small entities.
The agency must also provide a summary of the nature of the rule and a schedule for acting on each rule for which the agency has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking.
The regulatory flexibility agenda also is required to contain the name and address of the agency official knowledgeable about the items listed. Furthermore, agencies are required to provide notice of their agendas to small entities and to solicit their comments by direct notification or by inclusion in publications likely to be obtained by such entities.
Additionally, Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to publish, twice each year, a regulatory agenda of regulations under development or review during the next year, and the executive order states that such an agenda may be combined with the agenda published in accordance with the RFA. The regulatory flexibility agenda lists the regulatory activities expected to be under development or review during the next 12 months. It includes all such activities, whether or not they may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This agenda also includes regulatory activities that appeared in the spring 2017 agenda and have been completed by the Commission prior to publication of this agenda. Although CPSC, as an independent regulatory agency, is not required to comply with Executive Orders, the Commission does follow Executive Order 12866 regarding the publication of its regulatory agenda.
The agenda contains a brief description and summary of each regulatory activity, including the objectives and legal basis for each; an approximate schedule of target dates, subject to revision, for the development or completion of each activity; and the name and telephone number of a knowledgeable agency official concerning particular items on the agenda.
The internet is the basic means through which the Unified Agenda is disseminated. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at:
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet.
The agenda reflects an assessment of the likelihood that the specified event will occur during the next year; the precise dates for each rulemaking are uncertain. New information, changes of circumstances, or changes in law may alter anticipated timing. In addition, no final determination by staff or the Commission regarding the need for, or the substance of, any rule or regulation should be inferred from this agenda.
Currently, staff is working with voluntary standards organizations, both ASTM and NFPA, and BEARHFTI to evaluate new provisions and improve the existing consensus standards related to upholstered furniture flammability. Depending upon progress of the various standards, in FY 2019, staff plans to prepare a briefing package with options for Commission consideration that includes continuing with or terminating rulemaking, pursuing alternative approaches to address the hazard and/or continuing with voluntary standards development.
In October 2016, staff delivered a briefing package with a draft notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to the Commission. In November 2016, the Commission voted to approve the NPRM. The notice was published in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
Twice a year, in spring and fall, the Commission publishes in the
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Maura McGowan, Telecommunications Policy Specialist, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0990.
The Commission encourages public participation in its rulemaking process. To help keep the public informed of significant rulemaking proceedings, the Commission has prepared a list of important proceedings now in progress. The General Services Administration publishes the Unified Agenda in the
The following terms may be helpful in understanding the status of the proceedings included in this report:
Karen Schroeder, Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554,
Jerusha Burnett, Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554,
In the Report and Order, the Commission amended its rules to make additional spectrum available for new investment in mobile broadband networks while also ensuring that the United States maintains robust mobile satellite service capabilities. First, the Commission adds co-primary Fixed and Mobile allocations to the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) 2 GHz band, consistent with the International Table of Allocations, allowing more flexible use of the band, including for terrestrial broadband services, in the future. Second, to create greater predictability and regulatory parity with the bands licensed for terrestrial mobile broadband service, the Commission extends its existing secondary market spectrum manager spectrum leasing policies, procedures, and rules that currently apply to wireless terrestrial services to terrestrial services provided using the Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) of an MSS system. Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding concerning Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz, 1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz, and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules.
Navtech Radar, Ltd. and Honeywell International, Inc., filed petitions for reconsideration in response to the
The Commission denied Honeywell's petition. Section 1.429(b) of the Commission's rules provides three ways in which a petition for reconsideration can be granted, and none of these have been met. Honeywell has not shown that its petition relies on facts regarding fixed radar use which had not previously been presented to the Commission, nor does it show that its petition relies on facts that relate to events that changed since Honeywell had the last opportunity to present its facts regarding fixed radar use.
The Commission stated in the Vehicular Radar R&O, “that no parties have come forward to support fixed
In connection with the Commission's decision to deny the petitions for reconsideration discussed above, the Commission terminates ET Docket Nos. 10-28 and 11-90 (pertaining to vehicular radar).
This Report and Order updates the Commission's radiofrequency (RF) equipment authorization program to build on the success realized by its use of Commission-recognized Telecommunications Certification Bodies (TCBs). The rules the Commission is adopting will facilitate the continued rapid introduction of new and innovative products to the market while ensuring that these products do not cause harmful interference to each other or to other communications devices and services.
In the Report and Order, the Commission takes several steps to accommodate the long-term needs of wireless microphone users. Wireless microphones play an important role in enabling broadcasters and other video programming networks to serve consumers, including as they cover breaking news and live sports events. They enhance event productions in a variety of settings including theaters and music venues, film studios, conventions, corporate events, houses of worship, and internet webcasts. They also help create high quality content that consumers demand and value. In particular, the Commission provide additional opportunities for wireless microphone operations in the TV bands following the upcoming incentive auction, and the Commission provide new opportunities for wireless microphone operations to access spectrum in other frequency bands where they can share use of the bands without harming existing users.
In the Order on Reconsideration, we address the four petitions for reconsideration of the Wireless Microphones R&O concerning licensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands, the 600 MHz duplex gap,” and several other frequency bands, as well as three petitions for reconsideration of the TV Bands Part 15 R&O concerning unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands, the 600 MHz guard bands and duplex gap, and the 600 MHz service band. Because these petitions involve several overlapping technical and operational issues concerning wireless microphones, we consolidate our consideration of them in this one order.
In the Further Notice, we propose to permit certain professional theater, music, performing arts, or similar organizations that operate wireless microphones on an unlicensed basis and that meet certain criteria to obtain a Part 74 license to operate in the TV bands (and the 600 MHz service band during the post-auction transition period), thereby allowing them to register in the white spaces databases for interference protection from unlicensed white space devices at venues where their events/productions are performed. In addition, we propose to permit these same users, based on demonstrated need, also to obtain a Part 74 license to operate on other bands available for use by Part 74 wireless microphone licensees provided that they meet the applicable requirements for operating in those bands.
The Report and Order adopts definitions and permissible use provisions for digital TV translator and LPTV stations. The Second Report and Order takes steps to resolve the remaining issues in order to complete the low-power television digital transition. The third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on a number of issues related to the potential impact of the incentive auction and the repacking process.
Pursuant to a remand from the Third Circuit, the measures adopted in the 2009 Diversity Order were put forth for comment in the NPRM for the 2010 review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership rules. The Commission sought additional comment in 2014. The Commission addressed the remand in the 2016 Second Report and Order in the Broadcast Ownership proceeding. The Commission developed a revenue-based definition of eligible entity in order to promote small business participation in the broadcast industry. The Commission failed to adopt a race or gender conscious eligible entity standard. The Commission found the record was not sufficient to satisfy the constitutional standards to adopt race or gender conscious measures.
In May 2016, the Commission released a Report and Order, FNPRM, and Order on Reconsideration (see dockets 11-82 & 15-80). The Order on Reconsideration addressed outage reporting for events at airports, and the FNPRM sought comment on database sharing. Comments and replies were received by the Commission in August and September 2016.
Gregory Cooke, Deputy Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, PSHSB, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554,
The Spectrum Act requires that the incentive auction consist of a reverse auction “to determine the amount of compensation that each broadcast television licensee would accept in return for voluntarily relinquishing some or all of its spectrum usage rights and a forward auction” that would allow mobile broadband providers to bid for licenses in the reallocated spectrum. Broadcast television licensees who elected to voluntarily participate in the auction had three basic options: Voluntarily go off the air, share spectrum, or move channels in exchange for receiving part of the proceeds from auctioning that spectrum to wireless providers.
In June 2014, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that laid out the general framework for the incentive auction. The incentive auction started on March 29, 2016, with the submission of initial commitments by eligible broadcast licensees that had submitted timely and complete applications. The incentive auction officially ended on April 13, 2017, with the release of the Auction Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice that also marked the start of the 39-month transition period during which broadcasters will transition their stations to their post-auction channel assignments in the reorganized television bands.
In the Report and Order, the Commission addresses the problem of illegal use of contraband wireless devices by inmates in correctional facilities by streamlining the process of deploying contraband wireless device interdiction systems (CIS)—systems that use radio communications signals requiring Commission authorization—in correctional facilities. In particular, the Commission eliminates certain filing requirements and provides for immediate approval of the lease applications needed to operate these systems.
In the Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on a process for wireless providers to disable contraband wireless devices once they have been identified. The Commission also seeks comment on additional methods and technologies that might prove successful in combating contraband device use in correctional facilities, and on various other proposals related to the authorization process for CISs and their deployment.
The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to create a new Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3550 to 3650 MHz band to be governed by a new part 96 of the Commission's rules. Access to and use of the 3550 to 3650 MHz band would be managed by a spectrum access system, incorporating a geo-location enabled dynamic database.
The Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted by the Commission established a new Citizens Broadband Radio Service for shared wireless broadband use of the 3550 to 3700 MHz band. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service is governed by a three-tiered spectrum authorization framework to accommodate a variety of commercial uses on a shared basis with incumbent Federal and non-Federal users of the band. Access and operations will be managed by a dynamic spectrum access system. The three tiers are: Incumbent Access, Priority Access, and General Authorized Access. Rules governing the Citizens Broadband Radio Service are found in part 96 of the Commission's rules.
On March 24, 2017, the FCC released a Second Report and Order (second R&O) and a companion Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (second FNPRM). In the second R&O, the FCC revised the Cellular radiated power rules to permit compliance with limits based on power spectral density (PSD) as an option for licensees deploying wideband technologies such as LTE, while retaining the existing non-PSD limits for licensees that deploy narrowband technologies. This ensures that carriers are treated similarly regardless of technology choice, and aligns the Cellular power rules with those used to provide mobile broadband in other service bands. The second R&O also made conforming changes to cellular technical rules to accommodate PSD, additional licensing reforms. In the second FNPRM, the FCC seeks comment on other measures to give cellular licensees more flexibility and administrative relief, and on ways to consolidate and simplify the rules, not only for the cellular service, but also other geographically licensed wireless services.
On March 20, 2017, the Commission adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to extend the separations freeze for an additional 18 months through December 2018 and to consider with the Separations Federal-State Joint Board comprehensive reform of the jurisdictional separations procedures in the Commission's rules.
In its 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to allow interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VOIP) providers to obtain telephone numbers directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator and the Pooling Administrator, subject to certain requirements. The Commission also sought comment on a forward-looking approach to numbers for other types of providers and uses, including telematics and public safety, and the benefits and number exhaust risks of granting providers other than interconnected VoIP providers direct access.
In its 2015 Report and Order, the Commission established an authorization process to enable interconnected VoIP providers that choose to obtain access to North American Numbering Plan telephone numbers directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator and/or the Pooling Administrator (Numbering Administrators), rather than through intermediaries. The Order also set forth several conditions designed to minimize number exhaust and preserve the integrity of the numbering system. Specifically, the Commission required interconnected VoIP providers obtaining numbers to comply with the same requirements applicable to carriers seeking to obtain numbers. The requirements included any state requirements pursuant to numbering authority delegated to the states by the Commission, as well as industry guidelines and practices, among others. The Commission also required interconnected VoIP providers to comply with facilities readiness requirements adapted to this context, and with numbering utilization and optimization requirements. In addition, as conditions to requesting and obtaining numbers directly from the Numbering Administrators, the
In the Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released on May 13, 2009, the Commission reduced the porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal port requests, requiring all entities subject to its local number portability (LNP) rules to complete simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal port requests within one business day. In a related Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission sought comment on what further steps, if any, the Commission
In the LNP Standard Fields Order, released on May 20, 2010, the Commission adopted standardized data fields for simple wireline and intermodal ports. The Order also adopts the NANC's recommendations for porting process provisioning flows and for counting a business day in the context of number porting.
The 2015 Order on Reconsideration was upheld on appeal before the
On February 13, 2015, the Wireline Competition Bureau provided additional guidance regarding how providers must categorize information. The Commission also adopted an Order on Reconsideration addressing petitions for reconsideration. Reports have been due quarterly beginning with the second quarter of 2015.
On February 23, 2017, the Commission adopted an Report and Order that revised the part 32 USOA to substantially reduce accounting burdens for both price cap and rate-of-return carriers. First, the Order streamlines the USOA for all carriers. In addition, the USOA will be aligned more closely with generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. Second, the Order allows price cap carriers to use GAAP for all regulatory accounting purposes as long as they comply with targeted accounting rules, which are designed to mitigate any impact on pole attachment rates. Alternatively, price cap carriers can elect to use GAAP accounting for all purposes other than those associated with pole attachment rates and continue to use the part 32 accounts for pole attachment rates for up to 12 years. Third, the Order addresses several miscellaneous issues, including referral to the Federal-State Joint Board on Separations the issue of examining jurisdictional separations rules in light of the reforms adopted to part 32.
Previously, in February 2015, the Commission adopted a Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order (Title II Order) that reclassified broadband internet access service under title II of the Communications Act. The Commission also adopted new bright-line rules under its Ttitle II authority, along with a general conduct standard applicable to broadband service providers, as well as additional reporting obligations. The rules became effective on June 12, 2015, with the exception of the additional reporting obligations, which became effective on January 17, 2017.
In March 2017, the Commission adopted an Order granting a five-year waiver to broadband internet access service providers with 250,000 or fewer broadband connections from the additional reporting obligations.
The Wireline Infrastructure Item proposes revisions to the Commission's network change disclosure rules to allow providers greater flexibility in the copper retirement process and to reduce associated regulatory burdens, to facilitate more rapid deployment of next-generation networks. It also seeks comment on streamlining and/or eliminating provisions of the more generally applicable network change notification rules. Additionally, the Wireline Infrastructure Item seeks comment on several targeted measures to shorten timeframes and eliminate unnecessary process encumbrances that force carriers to maintain legacy services they seek to discontinue including: (1) Proposing to reduce the public comment and automatic grant periods to a uniform 10 days and 25 days, respectively, for all applications seeking to grandfather legacy low-speed services, regardless of whether the provider filing the application is a dominant or non-dominant carrier; and (2) proposing to adopt streamlined, uniform public comment and automatic grant periods of 10 days and 31 days, respectively, for any application seeking authorization to discontinue legacy data services that have previously been grandfathered for a period of no less than 180 days, regardless of whether the discontinuing carrier is dominant or non-dominant. The Wireline Infrastructure Item also seeks comment on other methods to streamline section 214(a) applications more generally, including reversal of the Commission's 2015 clarification” of section 214(a) that substantially expanded the scope of end users that a carrier must consider in determining whether it is required to obtain section 214 discontinuance authority. Additionally, the Wireline Infrastructure Item requests comment on whether the Commission should revisit its 2014 Declaratory Ruling and subsequent 2015 Order on Reconsideration expanding what constitutes a service for purposes of section 214(a) discontinuance review. Comments on all portions of the Wireline Infrastructure Item were due on June 15, 2017, and reply comments were due on July 17, 2017.
Previously, in November 2014, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling that (i) Proposed new backup power rules; (ii) proposed new or revised rules for copper retirements and service discontinuances; and (iii) adopted a functional test in determining what constitutes a service” for purposes of section 214(a) discontinuance review. In August 2015, the Commission adopted a Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that: (i) Lengthened and revised the copper retirement process; (ii) determined that a carrier must obtain Commission approval before discontinuing a service used as a wholesale input if the carrier's actions will discontinue service to a carrier-customer's retail end users; (iii) Adopted an interim rule requiring incumbent LECs that seek to discontinue certain TDM-based wholesale services to commit to certain rates, terms, and conditions; (iv) proposed further revisions to the copper retirement discontinuance process; and (v) upheld the November 2014 Declaratory Ruling. In July 2016, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Order on Reconsideration that: (i) Adopted a new test for obtaining streamlined treatment when carriers seek Commission authorization to discontinue legacy services in favor of services based on newer technologies; (ii) set forth consumer education requirements for carriers seeking to discontinue legacy services in favor of services based on newer technologies; (iii) allowed notice to customers of discontinuance applications by email; (iv) required carriers to provide notice of discontinuance applications to Tribal entities; (v) made a technical rule change to create a new title for copper retirement notices and certifications; and (vi) harmonized the timeline for competitive LEC discontinuances caused by incumbent LEC network changes.
The Order requires interconnected VoIP providers obtaining numbers to comply with the same requirements applicable to carriers seeking to obtain numbers. These requirements include any state requirements pursuant to numbering authority delegated to the states by the Commission, as well as industry guidelines and practices, among others. The Order also requires interconnected VoIP providers to comply with facilities readiness requirements adapted to this context, and with numbering utilization and optimization requirements. As conditions to requesting and obtaining numbers directly from the numbering administrators, interconnected VoIP providers are also required to: (1) Provide the relevant State commissions with regulatory and numbering contacts when requesting numbers in those states; (2) request numbers from the numbering administrators under their own unique OCN; (3) file any requests for numbers with the relevant State commissions at least 30 days prior to requesting numbers from the numbering administrators; and (4) provide customers with the opportunity to access all abbreviated dialing codes (N11 numbers) in use in a geographic area.
Finally, the Order also modifies Commission's rules in order to permit VoIP Positioning Center (VPC) providers to obtain pseudo-Automatic Number Identification (p-ANI) codes directly from the numbering administrators for purposes of providing E911 services.
The Universal Service Fund is paid for by contributions from telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless companies, and interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, including cable companies that provide voice service, based on an assessment on their interstate and international end-user revenues. The Universal Service Administrative Company, or USAC, administers the four programs and collects monies for the Universal Service Fund under the direction of the FCC.
On December 20, 2016, the Commission adopted measures to
On March 2, 2017, the Commission implements Connect America Phase II auction in which service providers will compete to receive support to offer voice and broadband service in unserved high cost areas.
On April 21, 2017, the Commission granted a Petition for Reconsideration filed by NTCA.
On May 18, 2017, the Commission sought comments on whether to modify the methodology or eliminate the rate floor and related obligations.
On June 8, 2017, the Commission amended section 54.600(a) of its rules defining health care provider under the Rural Health Care Program to include Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNF's) as health care providers eligible to participate in the program.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Board is issuing this agenda under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Board's Statement of Policy Regarding Expanded Rulemaking Procedures. The Board anticipates having under consideration regulatory matters as indicated below during the period November 1, 2017, through April 30, 2018. The next agenda will be published in spring 2018.
Comments about the form or content of the agenda may be submitted any time during the next six months.
Comments should be addressed to Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
A staff contact for each item is indicated with the regulatory description below.
The Board is publishing its fall 2017 agenda as part of the Fall 2017 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda also identifies rules the Board has selected for review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and public comment is invited on those entries. The complete Unified Agenda will be available to the public at the following website:
The Board's agenda is divided into five sections. The first, Pre-rule Stage, reports on matters the Board is considering for future rulemaking. The second, Proposed Rule Stage, reports on matters the Board may consider for public comment during the next 6 months. The third section, Final Rule Stage, reports on matters that have been proposed and are under Board consideration. The fourth section, Long-Term Actions, reports on matters where the next action is undetermined, 00/00/0000, or will occur more than 12 months after publication of the Agenda. And a fifth section, Completed Actions, reports on regulatory matters the Board has completed or is not expected to consider further. A dot (•) preceding an entry indicates a new matter that was not a part of the Board's previous agenda.
Claudia Von Pervieux, Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Melissa Clark, Sr. Supervisory Financial Analyst, Federal Reserve System, Division of Supervision and Regulations, Washington, DC 20551,
Barbara Bouchard, Senior Associate Director, Federal Reserve System, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Washington, DC 20551,
Jay Schwarz, Senior Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Will Giles, Senior Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Claudia Von Pervieux, Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
We are publishing our semiannual regulatory agenda (the Agenda) in accordance with Public Law 96-354, “The Regulatory Flexibility Act,” and Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The Agenda is a compilation of all rulemaking activities on which we have recently completed action or have proposed or are considering action. We have completed 7 rulemaking activities since publication of our last Agenda on August 24, 2017. This issuance of our Agenda contains 30 active and 23 long-term rulemaking activities: 2 are Economically Significant; 8 represent Other Significant agency priorities; 39 are Substantive, Nonsignificant rulemaking activities; and 4 are Administrative rulemaking activities. In addition, 3 rulemaking activities impact small entities. This issuance also contains our annual regulatory plan, which contains information on some of our most important regulatory actions that we are considering issuing in proposed or final form during Fiscal Year 2018. Our regulatory plan was submitted to OMB in June 2017; updates have been reflected in the Agenda abstract for each rulemaking. We are requesting comment on the rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda.
Submit comments on rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda by February 12, 2018.
Submit comments on any rulemaking activity in the Agenda by the date and methods specified in any
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Cindy Bladey, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3280; email:
Please refer to Docket ID
•
○ For completed rulemaking activities go to
○ For active rulemaking activities go to
○ For long-term rulemaking activities go to
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0185 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Agenda is a compilation of all rulemaking activities on which an agency has recently completed action or has proposed or is considering action. The Agenda reports rulemaking activities in three major categories: Completed, active, and long-term. Completed rulemaking activities are those that were completed since publication of an agency's last Agenda; active rulemaking activities are those that an agency currently plans to have an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a Proposed Rule, or a Final Rule issued within the next 12 months; and long-term rulemaking activities are rulemaking activities under development but for which an agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months after publication of the current edition of the Unified Agenda.
We assign a “Regulation Identifier Number” (RIN) to a rulemaking activity when our Commission initiates a rulemaking and approves a rulemaking plan, or when the NRC staff begins work on a Commission delegated
The information contained in this Agenda is updated to reflect any action that has occurred on a rulemaking activity since publication of our last Agenda on August 24, 2017 (82 FR 40448). Specifically, the information in this Agenda has been updated through September 18, 2017.
The date for the next scheduled action under the heading “Timetable” is the date the next regulatory action for the rulemaking activity is scheduled to be published in the
A key part of our regulatory program is an annual review of all ongoing and potential rulemaking activities. In conjunction with our budget and long-term planning process, we develop program budget estimates and determine the relative priority of rulemaking activities using our Common Prioritization of Rulemaking (CPR) methodology (ADAMS Accession No. ML15086A074). For the most up-to-date information on the NRC's rulemaking activities, including the CPR score for each planned rulemaking activity see the NRC's Rules and Petitions web page at
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to conduct a review within 10 years of promulgation of those regulations that have or will have a
The comment period on the NRC's last Agenda (published on August 24, 2017 (82 FR 40448)) will close on September 25, 2017. The NRC will address any written comments on our 2017 Agenda issuances in our next Agenda update.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing the Chairman's agenda of rulemaking actions pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164) (Sep. 19, 1980). The items listed in the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for autumn 2017 reflect only the priorities of the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and do not necessarily reflect the view and priorities of any individual Commissioner.
Information in the agenda was accurate on October 6, 2017, the date on which the Commission's staff completed compilation of the data. To the extent possible, rulemaking actions by the Commission since that date have been reflected in the agenda. The Commission invites questions and public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
The Commission is now printing in the
The Commission's complete RFA agenda will be available online at
Comments should be received on or before February 12, 2018.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File No. S7-07-17. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (
Mykaila DeLesDernier, Office of the General Counsel, 202-551-5129.
The RFA requires each Federal agency, twice each year, to publish in the
The following abbreviations for the acts administered by the Commission are used in the agenda:
The Commission invites public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
By the Commission.
Surface Transportation Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Surface Transportation Board is publishing the Acting Chairman's agenda of rulemaking actions pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164) (Sep. 19, 1980). The items listed in the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for fall 2017 reflect the priorities of the Acting Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board and do not necessarily reflect the priorities of any other individual Board Member.
Listed below are the regulatory actions to be developed or reviewed during the next 12 months. Following each rule identified is a brief description of the rule, including its purpose and legal basis.
A contact person is identified for each of the rules listed below.
The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
(1) A brief description of the subject area of any rule that the agency expects to propose or promulgate, which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(2) A summary of the nature of any such rule under consideration for each subject area listed in the agenda pursuant to paragraph (1), the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing action on any rule for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and
(3) The name and telephone number of an agency official knowledgeable about the items listed in paragraph (1).
Accordingly, a list of proceedings appears below containing information about subject areas in which the Board is currently conducting rulemaking proceedings or may institute such proceedings in the near future. It also contains information about existing regulations being reviewed to determine whether to propose modifications through rulemaking.
The agenda represents the Acting Chairman's best estimate of rules that will be considered over the next 12 months. However, section 602(d) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 602(d), provides: “Nothing in [section 602] precludes an agency from considering or acting on any matter not included in a Regulatory Flexibility Agenda or requires an agency to consider or act on any matter listed in such agenda.”
The Acting Chairman is publishing the agency's Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for fall 2017 as part of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Unified Agenda is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), pursuant to Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. The Acting Chairman is participating voluntarily in the program to assist OMB and has included rulemaking proceedings in the Unified Agenda beyond those required by the RFA.
By the Board, Acting Chairman Begeman.
Francis O'Connor, Section Chief, Chemical & Agricultural Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001,
Category | Regulatory Information | |
Collection | Federal Register | |
sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |